SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 170 - Mar/21/23

Mar/21/23 10:18:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we absolutely have to look at the use of forced labour, not only in the Xinjiang region of China but also, of course, in any of our supply chains. We have to be willing to work with any party in Parliament to try to get some progress on this. I would say a good first step would be, if the Liberals will not take a copy of the list, maybe the member from the NDP could walk it over to them. They could copy and paste it, and we would at least have a good start.

98 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Mar/21/23 10:18:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this important topic, and I want to recognize the work of my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon, our shadow minister for trade, who is thinking very much about how to not only advance Canada's economic interests in trade, but also apply moral values and principles to the approach we take to trade and the importation of products. When most Canadians think about slavery, they think of history. They think of stories they have heard or read, or movies they have seen, about the Underground Railroad, the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade, the American Civil War, and figures such as Abraham Lincoln and William Wilberforce. These are important things for us to learn about from our past to understand the ongoing legacies and harms that resulted from that violence. However, we need to also immediately associate the reality of slavery with the contemporary experience. The ongoing reality is that there are people, many people, in our world today who are enslaved, who are forced to work against their will without pay, or without proper pay, and who are compelled into those positions as a result of various forms of disadvantage, in many cases because of their ethnic identity. As well, we have trading relationships with countries that are involved in the horrors of modern-day slavery. When we reflect on the injustices of the past and wonder how people allowed that to happen or why people were so indifferent, we need to then pull that reality up to today and ask why we are not doing more. It was not everyone, but many people were so indifferent to the horrors that were happening around them at those times. We need to ask why today we are not more seized with the reality of modern day-slavery and with the actions we need to take in order to respond. A few years ago, I visited Whitney Plantation, and it was a powerful exposition of the horrors of slavery as it existed in the United States in the past. It is very important for all of us to bring that reality forward and recognize the continuing horrors of slavery today. There are limits to what those of us in Canada, whether we as Canadian parliamentarians or members of the Canadian public, can do to respond to these horrors, but at a minimum, we should be setting a firm standard of not being complicit. That is, we should be doing everything within our power to not be in any way supporting or enabling the practice of slavery around the world. That includes firmly saying no to the importation of any products made from slave labour. I think there would be agreement in the House on the principle that we should not be purchasing products made from slave labour, but the problem has been the complete absence of will on the part of government to implement this. As my colleague said, we have seen no shipments of products from the Uighur region in China stopped as a result of slave labour. There was one case of a shipment that was stopped and then subsequently released. We can compare that level of enforcement to the much stronger levels of enforcement we have seen in the United States and other countries. Any time we have a significant gap of enforcement on an issue in Canada, and we can say a similar thing about foreign interference, frankly, and there are high levels of enforcement, such as shipments being stopped and people being arrested or expelled for spying, etc. in other countries, then we need to ask if this is because Canada is not being targeted or if it is because Canada is not being effective in its enforcement. We should not have a situation where ships containing products made from slave labour are told they cannot dock in Seattle but then have the same ships with the same products dock in Vancouver. That is not, in any way, morally acceptable. Let us acknowledge as well that international supply chains are complicated. Saying as a moral absolute that we should not be importing products made from slave labour is something I hope we can all agree on, but figuring out the systems and processes that are going to get us there is potentially challenging and complicated. However, what my colleague has said, and rightly so, is that we should simply work with the Americans to collaborate and align our enforcement, using the information and research they have already gathered. That would make the enforcement process much simpler. I would like to to see us go further than that. I would like to see us gathering together like-minded partners from around the world to ask if we can have a common standard, as well as common tools of enforcement to keep out products made from slave labour. Given the research and analysis that is required, if we can have a group of like-minded partners, G7 countries, or perhaps others, saying that we will all work together to ensure the effective enforcement of rules around keeping out products made from forced labour, then it would be less resource-intensive for us to do that work. We could simply say that, if an analysis has been done collectively among allies or by a trusted agency within a country that says that there is a high risk that particular products were produced with slave labour, then those products will not be able to be sold in any of the partner countries working together on this common frame. I think that makes sense from a moral perspective and follows up with our moral obligations. It also makes sense from practical and resource perspectives. Why would we have a different assessment from our partners and allies on whether a particular product was made from slave labour? It has been encouraging to see in the United States, which is admittedly a highly partisan environment, issues surrounding forced labour have been effective cross-party collaborations between Republicans and Democrats. I would like to see that spirit prevail in this place as well, but it requires, I think, the government to listen and respond to the legitimate concerns that have been brought forward because, the government has done nothing so far. We have, and I give due credit, a private member's bill from an individual member of the government that deals with a specific issue around disclosure, but we have not seen, contrary to promises that have been made, government legislation on some of the broader issues around forced labour and supply chains. We have not seen what many people are calling for, which is a specific targeted approach to some of these extreme hot spots of forced labour. In some cases, we see forced labour happening in ungoverned or less governed places. It happens outside of the law, without the official sanction of the state involved but, notably, in the case of the Uighur region in China, we see forced labour happening in a way that is coordinated as part of a genocide of the Uighur people, a genocide the House has recognized, but that the government has still failed to recognized. When we have a state-directed genocide associated with forced labour, surely we should have a targeted approach to that specific region. I have said many times before that I support a framework that aligns with the bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States, which presumes that products that come out of the Uighur region have forced labour involved in those products, unless it can be proven otherwise. If it can be proven otherwise, they are okay, but it is reasonable to presume that products coming out of that region have a very high risk of forced labour, so we should just say no to products coming out of that region, unless we can prove otherwise. If we were to adopt measures like this, it would strengthen that alignment, that opportunity for shared enforcement, among allies. I would continue to call on the government to benefit from the work that is being done in other countries. This is a case where it is acceptable to copy someone else's homework. When the work is being done in other countries, we can be more effective in our enforcement of keeping products made from forced labour out if we simply work with our allies. In closing, I would submit this: If slavery were still going on in an industrial scale in North America, if there were still plantations in the southern United States, we would not be comfortable importing cotton or other products that came from those plantations. We would say no in that particular case. We should say no, as well, in the case of slavery happening in China or other parts of the world, and we should be effective in aligning our enforcement with our allies to get that done.

1502 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.)

Mar/21/23 10:28:56 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments and those of his colleague. This is an important issue that we are debating today. With respect to the Xinjiang integrity declaration, it is about a broader examination of what is going on in China, particularly with respect to one community, the Uighur community. On the issue of Chinese human rights violations, it is articulated quite clearly in the Indo-Pacific strategy, which our government launched last November. It talks about being clear, open-eyed and transparent about calling out human rights violations against Tibetans, Hong Kong democracy dissenters, Taiwanese individuals and Uighurs. Does the member acknowledge that this is an important step in the right direction, vis-à-vis more accountability and transparency for China?

124 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Mar/21/23 10:29:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think I did a panel with my hon. friend precisely on the Indo-Pacific strategy. I told him, at the time, that the Indo-Pacific strategy sounds, in certain respects, like the Liberals are trying to talk like Conservatives, but they are still acting like Liberals. This is the problem. If we read the Indo-Pacific strategy, sure, there are some pieces in there where Tibetans are mentioned and that is good, and Uighurs are mentioned and that is good. There are a few things in there that we can nod along to, but in terms of the substance of what the government has done, before and since it released that strategic document, the government is not following through. What I care much more about, and what Uighurs care much more about than what is written in a strategic document, is whether products made with slave labour are being prevented from getting into Canada. That is what really matters, and the rubber has not hit the road.

170 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Mar/21/23 10:30:32 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-211

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his speech and I thank the member for Dufferin—Caledon for his leadership on this issue. Obviously this raises a number of questions. Which companies and which type of products will be targeted? Will consumers be prepared to pay more? I think that goes without saying when it comes to human rights, but at the end of the day, will consumers be aware of the choices they have to make? Will this have an impact on Canadian companies and their suppliers? Are we prepared to make these choices? I would like my colleague's thoughts on this. There may also be a connection with Bill S‑211, which is currently at third reading stage in the House after passing all the steps in the process in the Senate. Will Bill S‑211 provide answers to the motion being moved and debated today?

158 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Mar/21/23 10:31:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is a pleasure to work with the Bloc on these issues. As for Bill S‑211, as I was saying, I believe that this bill is positive. It helps in achieving certain objectives, but it does not encompass everything that needs to be taken into account. There are several other measures to bring in. I had asked the government to do more in order to achieve these objectives. I will vote in favour of this bill, but the story does not end there.

94 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Mar/21/23 10:32:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if one wants to deal with slave labour products, all one has to do is walk through any shopping mall. It has been identified that 83 major brands are tied to slave labour, like Abercrombie & Fitch, Adidas, Carter's, The Gap, Bosch, Calvin Klein, General Motors, Google and Dell. We have seen the reports. We know where these corporations are. Is it about working with our allies or simply saying, in Canadian law, that if a corporation is selling products in Canada from slave labour, it will be held accountable? I imagine that if we actually put laws in place to deal with that, the companies would up their standards. Right now, they are getting a free pass and it is not acceptable.

126 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Mar/21/23 10:33:01 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I share the hon. member's criticism of many of these companies. Frankly, they talk a good game when it comes to corporate social responsibility or community engagement in North America, but they completely fail to apply those principles in other countries. Some of the companies, for example, were very happy to talk about Black Lives Matter in North America, but they were not in China saying that Uighur lives matter. It was very clear, with many of these corporations, that if they were sincere about questions of racial justice and inclusion, for instance, they would understand that it is a global obligation to talk about these issues, not simply an obligation to talk about them in particular consumer markets where the discussion of those issues is more appreciated, as opposed to other places, where it would have been detrimental to their business to actually be focusing on these issues. We need to hold governments, as well as corporations, accountable, but I think it has to come down to enforcement. The government, in order to stop slave labour, has to stop these products from coming into Canada.

189 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.)

Mar/21/23 10:34:08 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-211

Madam Speaker, it is an important issue, as I mentioned in my earlier intervention, that is being discussed today, and it was raised at the trade committee prior to this. When we talk about the Xinjiang integrity declaration, we are speaking about the issues regarding goods whose provenance originates in a particular part of the People's Republic of China, known by locals as East Turkestan and by the PRC government as Xinjiang. The notion of the integrity declaration is to ensure that the provenance of goods that are coming from that particular area does not originate in forced labour or even slave labour, as has been mentioned by some members opposite, specifically on the part of Uighurs. This is a significant concern, not just for the Government of Canada but for our allies and many liberal and democratic nations around the planet, as it should be. I think the awareness of Canadians and folks around the planet has been accentuated in recent years with the rise of more strident policies on the part of the People's Republic of China and the Communist Party of China. That is the scope of what we are discussing right now. It is about the declaration itself and what actions are being taken under the declaration. In order to contextualize the discussion, we need to understand the evolving approach to the People's Republic of China itself. The People's Republic of China is under President Xi, who, as we speak, is visiting with Vladimir Putin, of all people, in an effort to address and shore up the alliance between Putin and Xi. That is a cause of concern for all right-thinking and democratically oriented governments around the planet, particularly those that oppose an illegal and unjustified invasion. That gives us a sense of where President Xi is in terms of overtly aligning himself with the policies of Vladimir Putin. Those policies include policies of aggression. We are seeing Putin's aggression vis-à-vis Ukraine. We are seeing an aspiring, more aggressive, imperial-based Chinese policy, in terms of potential ambitions with respect to the island of Taiwan, the way China has treated Tibetans in the last 63 years, and the treatment that is being meted out toward Uighurs. With respect to our policy as a government and as a Parliament regarding this part of China and the position we are taking, I would say we need look no further than the things that have been passed on the floor of this chamber. I am speaking of a motion, about 12 to 18 months ago, with respect to labelling what is transpiring in Xinjiang with the Uighurs as a genocide. That is a very significant conclusion to be drawn by parliamentarians. It is something that parliamentarians voted on in this chamber, and it is an accurate depiction, if the evidence is borne out from what we have thus far. We know that those factual elements that have been laid out, if proven, would demonstrate genocide in terms of international law. That is a significant aspect to consider. About six weeks ago, we passed yet another motion, entirely unanimously, in this chamber to again address the Xinjiang region. What I am speaking of is a policy and a motion that was presented by the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, if I have that correct, who is also the chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. It is the idea that, with respect to Xinjiang, what we need to be doing as a government and as a nation is ensuring that individuals who are fleeing that type of persecution have a safe haven here in Canada, and bringing as many as 10,000 Uighurs to this country by 2024. That is a very significant step in the right direction in terms of taking a position as a Parliament and as a government toward the human rights violations that are occurring in the Xinjiang region. Members heard me outline in my original intervention that we have also taken a very significant orientation shift with respect to our foreign policy. I am talking about the Indo-Pacific strategy. We can talk about what the Americans are doing with their Indo-Pacific economic framework, the IPEF, as it is called in the United States. Canada, the United States and many other nations are veering their orientation and foreign policy that is geared toward Asia away from China and its strident, aggressive policies, including its human rights violations, and toward other nations. The Indo-Pacific strategy is a classic example of that. Why do I raise this in the context of Xinjiang? It is because the Indo-Pacific strategy speaks directly to this very issue. What am I speaking of? There are several pages dedicated to Canada's eyes-wide-open understanding and approach to China as a strident and more assertive, disruptive nation. What the Indo-Pacific strategy outlines is that with respect to China, what we will do is be more clear, articulate and transparent about holding China accountable for various human rights violations. I am speaking of the Tibetan Canadians whom I represent and their Tibetan counterparts who remain in the Tibet Autonomous Region, and the human rights violations that have occurred since 1959, and before 1959, with respect to that community for the last 64 years. That is important to underscore in terms of their religious freedom, linguistic freedom and cultural freedom. We are talking about things such as Hong Kong democracy protesters and what has been transpiring over the last two or three years in terms of Hong Kongers daring to rise up and speak out against legislative policy that would restrict their freedom of expression. We are talking about individuals, such as those on the island of Taiwan, who fear for their physical safety and their survival as an independent nation among the community of nations. We are talking about Uighurs who come from East Turkestan, also referred to as Xinjiang by the People's Republic of China, and their rights to physical safety, religious freedom, cultural freedom and cultural liberties, of which they are being deprived in the People's Republic of China as we speak. Those positions, those components are articulated in our Indo-Pacific strategy, and I think that is important because it shows the orientation of the government vis-à-vis China, and Xinjiang in particular. Some of the contributions to the debate thus far by the members opposite have included criticisms, indeed in some respects accusations, that the Government of Canada is not raising these concerns with sufficient alacrity, sufficient clarity or sufficient repetitiveness or comprehensiveness, including in international dialogue. Nothing could be further from the case. I know with absolute clarity that the issue of Chinese human rights violations, whether it is with respect to Uighurs, Tibetans or Hong Kong democracy protesters, is articulated at every instance and at every available opportunity by representatives of the Government of Canada, including at bilateral and multilateral meetings, and multilateral forums. I will give a case-in-point example in which I participated. In February, the OECD held an annual forum on responsible business conduct, which is exactly what we are talking about in this context, and that is about the conduct and comportment of enterprises that operate outside of one's borders. At that forum, I was there as the head of the Canadian delegation, representing the Minister of International Trade, and I went to specific lengths to articulate the positions we are taking as the Canadian government with respect to responsible business conduct. I articulated, specifically, references to the Indo-Pacific strategy and the very Xinjiang integrity declaration that is the subject of this morning's discussion. That prompted a very strong and firm response by the Chinese delegation that was present at those Paris meetings, who effectively indicated as follows. They told me, in good French, that I was telling lies. They indicated that I was effectively lying about the state of play in the People's Republic of China. I was not lying when I was articulating, in an open international forum at the OECD, China's track record of violating the human rights of Uighurs, Tibetans and others, particularly with respect to people who originate from Xinjiang. The fact that those instances are being articulated by the Canadian government should give some comfort to those in this chamber who would argue that we need to be doing more of this. We are doing it. We will continue to do it. We will continue to do it in as many forums as possible. We have to understand the approach toward Xinjiang within the broader context of our approach to labour issues. This has come up about forced labour in the supply chains, a critical issue. The issue of potential slave labour being in supply chains is also a very critical issue. Canadians need look no further than the mandate letters, which we publish as a government, that are given by the Prime Minister to different members of cabinet. Canadians who are watching right now could look clearly at the mandate letter that has been provided to the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour's mandate letter articulates and provides a direction from the Prime Minister for him to work on a comprehensive piece of legislation that would work to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains. That is something that the minister has been mandated to work on, something that he, his political team and his departmental team are working diligently on. That would include things such as a due diligence standard, standards that Canadian enterprises need to operate under, and also repercussions for transgressing those standards, including for not rooting out forced labour in supply chains. We have heard a little about Bill S-211, which is being sponsored in this chamber by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, who has served in this chamber for about seven terms. It originates in the other chamber, in the Senate, from Senator Miville-Dechêne. Bill S-211 and the mandate given for government legislation to the Minister of Labour demonstrate our government's commitment to eradicating forced labour from our supply chains. While we are looking at this, it is also important to understand the international context, and the international context is a wide one. In meetings at the OECD, I talked to the actual governmental representatives of about four different nations that have launched into this area of eradicating forced labour from supply chains. People talked to me quite candidly about what is working in northern Europe, what is working with respect to the U.K. Modern Slavery Act and where things could be tweaked. They talked about how the Dutch, the Germans and the French, for example, are approaching it. These are important conversations that we are having, because what we seek to do with our legislation in Canada is to adopt an international best practice, to pick and choose what works in different jurisdictions and to improve on where there may be obstacles, errors or challenges that those other jurisdictions are coming up with. That is to indicate to Canadians who are watching today that the idea of eradicating forced labour in supply chains is an important one, but it is also a complex one in terms of getting it right. It dovetails with things such as the size of the company, what companies the due diligence standards apply to and what the penalties are on the back end with respect to those companies. When we look at eradicating forced labour from our supply chains, we need to zoom out to see what we are doing to ensure proper and responsible business conduct. I will point to several things. We launched the responsible business conduct strategy in April 2022. On behalf of the Minister of International Trade, I was there to launch it with a whole host of civil society organizations. They were very keen to see what we were doing to ensure that Canadian entities working abroad are acting and behaving responsibly and that they are complying with the law and with Canadian values. Those include things like an attestation clause, which is attached to our responsible business conduct strategy, for Canadian enterprises that are going to work abroad or in various parts of the planet. In order to avail themselves of things like the trade commissioner services and of the very hard-working Canadians who operate in 160 offices around the planet to help Canadian enterprises do business in all four corners of the globe, those entities need to attest formally, in documentation, that they will abide by Canadian values, norms and laws, and also abide by international norms, guidelines and statutes in the locations where they will be doing the work. That is important and it should go without saying. However, by having a quid pro quo, meaning that without the attestation the entities do not avail themselves of trade commissioner services, we are putting teeth to the notion that Canadian enterprises must conduct themselves responsibly when they work abroad. These are very critical. As part of the responsible business conduct strategy, we are also developing a due diligence standard, which also dovetails with the work that has been taking place at the Minister of Labour's offices. There is also a whole host of legislative tools that we have implemented. The list of legislative resources is quite in-depth. We passed legislation that deals with the corruption of foreign officials. It should go without saying, but one cannot be engaged in corruption of foreign officials and in bribery acts when one is a Canadian entity operating abroad. We passed legislation, the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act, that deals with one of Canada's great fortes, which is our mining expertise and our mining know-how in Canadian mining operations operating abroad. In the extractive sector, there must be transparency that is informing the conduct at all times of Canadian entities that are operating abroad. We passed the Customs Tariff Act amendment, which deals with the entities that would be brought into the country. Directly relevant to the issue that has been raised in today's debate, it is about goods that are being brought into the country and that they must abide by the Customs Tariff regulations and amendments. We put this in place to guard against human rights violations on the part of goods that are entering into the country. We created the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise. We created this entity in our first Parliament as a government, circa 2018-19. This is the only office of its kind on the entire planet. To purport, as the members opposite have, that we are not showing leadership on responsible business conduct abroad is categorically false. The creation of a Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise, whose annual report I tabled moments before this debate started this morning in this chamber, demonstrates what we are doing as a government. We put money where our mouth is to create, fund and staff that office with personnel so they can examine critically the conduct of Canadian enterprises abroad and the kinds of norms, rules and values that are being observed by those enterprises. We heard interventions by the New Democratic member two or three times in this morning's debate about the garment industry. In regard to that, the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise, pursuant to her own mandate, initiated a study of the garment industry and Canadian enterprises operating in locations like Bangladesh. That is specifically the work that we feel needs to be done. It is being done right here in Canada, by virtue of legislation that we passed, in an office that we created and that we staffed. Again, this is the only country on the planet that has such an entity. That is critical initiative and critical leadership. Regarding legislative initiatives, we also legislated UNDRIP and passed it. We have abided by UNDRIP, we have ratified UNDRIP and we have passed legislation that relates to UNDRIP. Why is UNDRIP related to issues of conduct abroad? One cannot deal with responsible business conduct abroad without understanding the impact enterprises have around the planet. Let us pick a continent, such as Asia, South America or Africa. There are indigenous communities all over the planet affected by the conduct of Canadian enterprises. Let us pick a sector, such as the mining sector, the garment sector, etc. When indigenous communities are affected, we have responsibilities, pursuant to UNDRIP, that inform what can and cannot happen vis-à-vis those indigenous communities. Those communities can and should be availing themselves of the benefits from the resources being extracted from the wealth that is on their land. That is an important legislative component that has not been mentioned by the member opposite in raising this issue of debate. There are also international commitments that we have not only led on, in terms of signing onto, but that we have also worked to further. I will just raise four. There are the UN guiding principles with respect to responsible business conduct. There are the OECD guidelines on responsible business conduct, which were the subject of the conference I attended in Paris in early February this year, regarding how businesses must comport themselves when they are operating abroad. My NDP friends will be keen to know that we are very active regarding international legal organization guidelines that dictate labour norms and labour conventions with respect to how businesses must operate and what kinds of protections they need to observe when they are operating abroad. We also have been in the forefront of advocating for sustainable development goals and meeting those sustainable development goals at an international level. The last piece I will speak to is an industry component of industry leadership on the part of Canadian entities taking the reins themselves. I will point to, as one example, the Mining Association of Canada's “Towards Sustainable Mining”. It is called the TSM initiative, in the vernacular in the industry. TSM is something that has been adopted by nine countries around the planet, so far. It is looking at adding four more. At the PDAC conference that I just attended in Toronto, which is the biggest mining conference of its kind in the world, that initiative was touted by all of the nations that were there. Many nations were expressing interest in participating in it. This is to demonstrate to Canadians that there is not only a component of what good government is doing and what Parliament is doing, but there is also a component of what industry is doing to ensure that the conduct of its enterprises operating abroad is clear, accountable and transparent with respect to human rights. Let me bring this back to the Xinjiang integrity declaration. One thing that I agree on with the members opposite in raising this issue of debate is that it is an important declaration and an important. Expedited work needs to be done with clarity on this issue and act on the declaration itself. That is an important initiative, and we need to show leadership not just in creating the declaration but also in acting on the declaration and working to ensure that goods coming in from that part of China are not tainted by the scourge of forced labour, including Uighur forced labour. That is one of the reasons I decided to run for office and stand in the House eight years ago. It is about taking a human rights lens and applying it to the various policies of the Government of Canada. I felt that it was something that was sorely lacking in the previous government. I will acknowledge that some of the legislative measures, including, I believe, the issue about the extractive sector transparency measures, were enacted by the previous government, so there were some good initiatives made by the previous government. Since 2015, we have taken that ball and moved it significantly forward by creating the CORE, creating the customs tariff amendment, passing UNDRIP and launching a new responsible business conduct strategy. That is the work I am committed to continuing, with the help of all parliamentarians in the House, to ensure that initiatives like the Xinjiang integrity declaration are fully fulfilled.

3405 words

All Topics

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

Mar/21/23 10:54:01 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if my life is ever on the line and I have an untenable case, I am going to get in touch with the member, because he tried to take a lot of information to create a case that the Liberals have done something, when the absolute result is nothing. It is like writing a 20-page paper on a particular topic, getting an F, and the teacher says that the topic was something else, so of course I got an F. The issue is whether the government has actually intercepted any goods made from the Xinjiang region of China where we know forced labour is being used. The answer to that is no. The member said the Liberals talked about it, that he went to a conference and he had a stern word with a representative for the PRC. That is great, but the United States has created a rebuttable presumption that goods from the Xinjiang region are based on forced labour. It is rebuttable. If a company can prove the goods are not, they can come in. In addition, the U.S. has put together a list of entities they know, so it is two things that are going on. This is not hard. It is really simple. I can give the member both of these things. Will the Liberals just do it? Will they take this list, put together the list and create the rebuttable presumption that goods from Xinjiang are being made with forced labour and therefore are not importable into this country? Will they do it?

262 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Mar/21/23 10:55:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for starting this debate. I think the level of sarcasm in his intervention is beneath him as a parliamentarian, but I will put that aside. With respect to the question that was raised, substantively, on the issue of this debate, it is important that we take evidence and information from all parties, whether that is the leadership that is being shown by the Americans, by the European allies or folks in the South Pacific, like Australia or New Zealand. It is important to aggregate as much information as possible, to learn what actions are being taken by other governments abroad and to see if we can work with that. On the eve of, or a few days before, a visit by the President of the United States to this august chamber, I think it is incumbent upon us to be consulting with our American counterparts about this and many other issues, specifically as they relate to the Indo-Pacific.

165 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Mar/21/23 10:56:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Essentially, businesses must be required to be more transparent about the efforts they make to eliminate child labour. Unfortunately, it exists everywhere. My colleague spoke about clothing manufactured in Bangladesh, but we also see it in food and protective equipment. Child labour is also used to make our computers. The United States, France and several EU countries have stricter laws. What does my colleague think of Canada's efforts to be stricter and to require greater transparency from businesses?

88 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Mar/21/23 10:56:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Bloc member. This type of question highlights the pervasiveness and complexity of the situation. We could talk about the fact that clothing is produced with cotton from Xinjiang, China. However, when we consider our computers, telephones and other goods, such as furniture, we should know these goods are all tainted by the scourge of child and slave labour around the world. The complexity of the situation requires that we study the matter several times and develop, as the Minister of Labour is doing, a bill that applies to any region in the world and any type of product—not just clothing, but also computers and telephones, for example.

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Mar/21/23 10:58:03 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are a number of issues we have to talk about here, in terms of Canadian law and protecting those in the global south who are exploited through ruthless practices that are considered illegal here, whether or not it is slave labour in China. I would ask my hon. colleague about the Joe Fresh disaster, where over 1,000 people died while working in sweatshops for Joe Fresh and Loblaws. Ontario courts threw out their attempt to be compensated and to hold the Canadian companies accountable for the conditions that existed in Bangladesh. It was just thrown out by the court. The people who suffered the horrific deaths, over 1,000 people in Bangladesh, were paid the equivalent of $150 per family per death. That is outrageous. We can talk about working with our allies, and we can talk about international agreements. However, we have a responsibility in Canada to say there is going to be a corporate accountability mechanism for the companies that use slave labour and they are going to be accountable. Those companies that offshore to the sweatshops that use brutal conditions, where people are suffering and dying, are going to be held accountable. Is the government ready to take the steps necessary to make sure companies take responsibility for the abuses that are happening?

220 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Mar/21/23 10:59:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of things in response to the member's question. Obviously, I am not going to opine on the floor of the chamber about determinations made by an individual court in Ontario or at the federal level with respect to what is called the extraterritorial application of law, where the Bangladeshi laws can be enforced here in Canada. What I would say is that it is important to ensure that the responsibility and the accountability that attach to Canadian enterprises operating abroad renders them more accountable vis-à-vis potential human rights violations that occur abroad. Where we can cure this is not by purporting to enforce Bangladeshi laws in Canadian courts, but by enforcing Canadian laws in Canadian courts. Where I find agreement with the member is with measures such as our Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act, amendments to the Customs Tariff, UNDRIP, etc. Passing domestic laws in this chamber that relate to this issue, such as the forthcoming forced labour bill from the Minister of Labour, would ensure accountability for Canadian enterprises operating abroad in Canadian courts, which is the result I believe the member is after.

194 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Mar/21/23 11:00:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for decades, influential consulting firms have been telling companies, especially American and Canadians ones, to outsource their production to cut costs associated with wages and corporate social responsibility. That has led to massive job losses here, but also working conditions abroad that are worse than they were during the period from the 18th to the mid-20th century, in other words, since the start of the industrial age. Obviously, we need to consider here how not to be complicit in forced labour. Is my colleague aware that the thirst for profits and the blind use of consultants on the sole basis of their reputation have had disastrous consequences for decades on workers' and human rights?

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Mar/21/23 11:01:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can say that we are all aware of the fact that there were serious threats to and serious violations of human rights around the world during the two centuries my colleague mentioned. We must not, however, lose sight of the fact that change is occurring in terms of rights, legislation and culture relating to human rights protection, here in Canada and especially elsewhere in the world. That is what needs to be reinforced in our legislation, goals and principles, and that is what we will promote with the soon-to-be-tabled bill from the Minister of Labour. It is a rather complex but important issue because human rights must be protected and the kinds of violations to which the member is referring need to be eliminated.

131 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Mar/21/23 11:02:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, previously the member for Dufferin—Caledon brought up the fact that an answer from the government to a written question, Question No. 1112, signed off by a parliamentary secretary, indicated that since 2016, CBSA has not actually seized any goods coming into Canada that were made through slave labour or forced labour. I listened carefully to the speech given by the parliamentary secretary, who did, indeed, do his very best to defend the government's record, but it has been seven years and no goods have been seized at the border. One shipment was stopped, but then released. Can the parliamentary secretary simply answer this question: When can we expect the government to actually direct the CBSA to seize goods made through forced labour, as the Americans are doing?

132 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Mar/21/23 11:03:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the mere fact of this debate, the issue that came up at committee, is important in terms of having a salutary impact on the behaviour of Canadian government institutions and raising this is an important priority on the part of the Parliament of Canada with respect to CBSA officials.

51 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Mar/21/23 11:04:03 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Nicolas de Condorcet used to say that the truth belongs to those who seek it, not to those who claim to own it. With that in mind, I welcome this motion, and I voted in favour of it when my Conservative colleague moved it in committee. For me, it is a step in the right direction, the beginning of something, a project. I am really glad the Conservatives have moved this motion. The last time I moved a motion to bring in a real due diligence policy seeking to pass it by unanimous consent, I heard a lot of howling from the opposition on my right. I use the word “right” in every sense of the word. I am glad the Conservatives finally woke up a bit, although it took a while. I also moved a motion on mining companies. The Standing Committee on International Trade has completed its study on mining, but we have not yet adopted the report. We have not yet heard from the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development. When I moved my motion on the subject of mining, the Conservatives also opposed it, so I am pleased that they have come to their senses. It is better late than never, as they say. I also want to thank the previous speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development. Recently, I was fortunate enough to go to Paris with him for the OECD summit, which focused on this particular issue. I am glad to see that the OECD and most countries are becoming aware of the problem. Unfortunately, this meeting turned into a bit of an exercise in one-upmanship. Everyone said they were taking this issue seriously and working hard in their communities to advance this cause. However, there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip, as the expression goes. This is a topic that resonates with me because I also tabled a petition in the House last spring, I believe, or early last summer, to bring in a meaningful due diligence policy. I have also co-sponsored bills. Bloc members never judge a bill by its cover. When a bill is good, we support it; when it is bad, we do not support it. I have co-sponsored two NDP bills. The first is Bill C-262, which has yet to move past first reading. If we are serious about this issue, we need to get on it, we need to make this a priority. The second is Bill C-263, which seeks to establish an office of the commissioner in this matter because an office like that could act as an authority. Let us take a step back in history. Once upon a time, there was colonization. We call many countries “developing” nations nowadays. They are southern nations, based on the old north-south divide. There used to be something called colonization. Colonial empires, or metropolises as they were called, wanted to get their hands on resources, so they went and took over other lands. They did not all go about it the same way. Some felt that the people on those lands, whom they considered inferior, needed to be civilized. Others took things even further: those people had to be exterminated, unfortunately. For others still, colonization meant stripping these people of all power and reducing them to insignificance for as long as they did business with them. This was often the British colonization model. The people no longer had any political power, but the colonial powers would pretend that they did. They let them elect leaders with little power, local leaders from their own tribes. This gave them the illusion that they still had power over their lives, which was a complete lie. It was called indirect rule. Then decolonization happened, as we know. Next came globalization. Starting in the 1980s, we were told that we needed to free up the multinationals and free up capital to ensure that it could be moved from one place to another, without borders, so that profits could be made, because all those profits would contribute to the common good. That was a very bad interpretation of the words of Adam Smith, who is credited with introducing the “invisible hand” theory. In reality, Adam Smith never came up with an invisible hand theory. The invisible hand is metaphor that he used three times to talk about different things. If we look at Adam Smith's work, we see that what he actually said is quite the opposite of what people took from his words in the 1980s and 1990s. When the Berlin Wall fell, the Iron Curtain also fell. It imploded, collapsed. That led to the rule of unadulterated neo-liberalism. All of the supranational bodies were saying that the time for nations and sovereignties was over, that it was the end for the social safety net. The time for measures and policies was over. Now was the time for capital to be deployed, for it to move from one jurisdiction to another by any means and at any time. It needed to be freed up as much as possible so that anything could be done with it. Obviously, today, that is no longer the case. We might say that globalization is in crisis, that we are returning to a multipolar world. It appears that there are several environmental and social consequences to these utopias. Among them, there is this idea of having a great global supply chain where every country can do its part. This also has consequences. Quebec has fared well under free trade. It has been a beneficial experience. We certainly need to continue to diversify our trade partners, but not at all costs. We have seen the human consequences in terms of human rights, obviously, but also the use of forced labour. That is the point of today's motion on the importation of goods linked to the use of forced labour. If we are going to address the problem, then we need to be serious. With what is referred to as dumping, a product can go through another country that is used as a flag of convenience. Then the product arrives here and we think it was made in places where forced labour is controlled and regulated, when in fact that is often not the case. The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, the CNCA, has made a number of demands. I am going to read them, because I think they are quite comprehensive. According to the CNCA, there are five essential elements in effective due diligence legislation which many Canadian and Quebec civil society groups agree on, and they are the following: require companies to prevent all human rights violations throughout their global operations and supply chains; require companies to develop and implement human rights due diligence procedures, and report on them, as well as require them to consult rights holders; require meaningful consequences for companies that fail to take these obligations seriously and guarantee impacted communities access to effective remedy in Canadians civil courts; be consistent with the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights and apply this legislation to companies of any size, while possibly allowing small business in low-risk sectors to be exempt; and apply to all human rights, because all human rights are interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. On June 22, 2022, I tabled a petition along those same lines: Whereas: some Canadian companies contribute to human rights abuses and environmental damage around the world; people who protest these abuses and stand up for their rights are often harassed, attacked or killed. Indigenous peoples, women and marginalized groups are particularly at risk; and Canada encourages companies to stop these harms from happening in their global operations and supply chains, but does not require them to. We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada, call on the House of Commons to adopt legislation on due diligence for human and environmental rights that: would require.... The rest of the petition contains more or less the same formal demands made by the CNCA which I just read. It also aligns with the motion I moved for unanimous consent, which, I would remind members, was rejected by the right in the House. Let us now discuss the bill in question. I applaud the sponsor, who has attempted previously to bring forward legislation on this matter. There was Bill C‑243, which was withdrawn in favour of the very similar Bill S‑211. We supported it and we will continue to support it, but it is just not enough, because if we ask ourselves whether the bill helps individuals who are affected obtain justice or redress, the answer is no. Does the bill seek to include communities and workers who are affected? No. Does the bill apply to businesses of all sizes in all sectors? No, it only applies to businesses with over 250 employees and “significant” revenue and assets. Does the bill apply to all human rights? No, it only applies to forced labour and child labour. Those are hugely important issues, and this is a step forward, but it should go much further. Are businesses required to respect human rights? No, they are only required to report annually on whether they have taken steps to recognize and prevent the use of forced labour, but reporting is not accountability. Does the bill require businesses to prevent harm? No, it only requires an annual report. Does the bill require businesses to take steps to identify, mitigate, prevent or report human rights violations and environmental damage in their supply chains, because the problem applies to the entire supply chain? No. There are no compulsory due diligence standards for businesses. Do they face significant consequences if they cause harm or fail to implement due diligence standards? Again, the answer is no. All the questions I just asked would be answered in the affirmative under the NDP Bill C-282, which I co-sponsored. This bill ticks all the boxes. I therefore encourage the government and the House to refer it to committee for study as soon as possible, because it provides a much better response to what is needed and to the urgency of the situation. I would also like to talk about Canadian mining companies, which I suggested would be a good subject for study by the Standing Committee on International Trade. First, let me clarify one thing. It is a real stretch to call them “Canadian” mining companies, because they are just using Canada as a “flag of convenience”. Mining companies are often Canadian only on paper. They choose Canada because its lax laws make it ridiculously easy to incorporate here, to present themselves as Canadian companies and to benefit from speculative benefits offered through and by the Toronto Stock Exchange. Canada is just being used as a “flag of convenience”. It is basically a front. I have seen this first-hand. The Bloc Québécois actually proposed a bill in 2009 that would have gotten to the heart of the issue, as it created an actual review commission that would have been politically independent and would have had the power to conduct its own investigations, without needing a complaint or a political directive. It would not simply have been a symbolic ombudsperson. This commission could have conducted its own investigations and publicly questioned Global Affairs Canada, or Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, as it was called at the time, if the department were even seen to support a mining company that was caught violating human rights. I travelled to Chile and Colombia, and in Colombia, I saw a mining company that was originally Canadian fall into Chinese hands. Speaking of forced labour, we saw a bus full of prisoners arrive from the People's Republic of China. Once the local miners have been squeezed out, one of the arguments often used to gain acceptance for these projects in mining areas is that they will create jobs. However, bringing in prisoners from the People's Republic of China is not exactly creating local jobs. Furthermore, diplomats must not provide unequivocal support for the aggressive tactics used by Canadian mining companies abroad, as Canadian embassies have been known to do. Embassies are being ordered to provide support through diplomacy. We also need to talk about money. It is important to talk about that, because Export Development Canada has investments in many problematic companies, including Baru Gold, which was mentioned several times. EDC continued to hand out loans to Teck Resources for its Quebrada Blanca mine in Chile, despite the political crisis and brutal repression going on in that country. In 2019 alone, EDC invested between $1 billion and $1.5 billion just in Chile's extractive sector. Vale was involved in two recent tailings dam disasters in Brazil. At the company's Brumadinho mine, hundreds of people were killed in January 2019 when a tailings dam collapsed. It is also the co-owner of the mine near Mariana, where a similar disaster wiped out an entire village in 2015. Both mines had been built using the riskiest method regulators would allow. Vale's other activities include a railway along which residents are regularly struck by trains, and a mine that was ordered to shut down several times because of the impact it was having on indigenous tribes. Vedanta Limited, a subsidiary of Vedanta Resources, received between $100 million and $250 million in loans in 2017. In 2018, there was a massacre at a smelter plant in India run by a subsidiary of Vedanta Resources. Police opened fire on a crowd of thousands who were protesting the planned expansion of the Tuticorin plant. Thirteen people were killed and dozens of others were injured. According to Emily Dwyer from the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, who testified at committee, some of the other mining companies that received funding from Export Development Canada and were mixed up in human rights violations include Teck Resources and Kinross. The mining industry in Canada received $6.524 million in funding in 2022. This is a serious matter. When we talk about accountability and the origin of goods, we need to be serious and take a closer look. I will now wrap up my speech in order to debate this issue with the rest of the House. We need some genuinely serious policies on this, such as Bill C‑262 and Bill C‑263, which I co-sponsored, and the bill that the Bloc Québécois introduced in 2009 about a review commission for mining companies. This needs to be taken seriously, because the ombudsperson is currently nothing but a complaints office and a web site. That is no way to deal with the serious, violent, brutal violations happening around the world. In closing, I want to wish everyone a happy end to the “no new clothes challenge”. March was dubbed “no new clothes” month. That lines up nicely with the theme we are discussing today.

2557 words

All Topics