44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 21, 2023 10:00AM
- Mar/21/23 10:03:35 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I move that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Thursday, February 9, be concurred in.
I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
How did we end up with this report from committee so that we are here today talking about it? Well, I will give a bit of background.
We signed a trade agreement in 2020, which was CUSMA. This was almost three years ago. That agreement specifically stated that we would not allow goods made with forced labour to be imported into Canada on their own or through supply chains. I have been very curious as to the progress made with respect to this file.
The Minister of International Trade came to committee, and I had the opportunity to ask her what progress had been made, in particular with respect to goods seized from the Xinjiang region of China. As we know, there are real challenges with the goods being made in the People's Republic of China.
I had an exchange with the minister. I asked her, “Have any shipments been seized as a result of this at the Canadian border? Do you track that?” Her response was, “I believe that there have been.” She then went on to talk about some bills and other things.
I also asked, “is the department keeping track of any of this? Are there any numbers that...[you] can release to this committee?” She did not have any numbers to give to me but finally said, “Absolutely, I am working very hard with the Minister of Labour and with my colleagues to ensure that we do have the mechanisms in place to live up to this important [thing].” She went on to say, “What I am saying is that the commitment by the Canadian government to ensure that there is no forced labour in our supply chain is real and that we are working on it.”
This prohibition started in 2020, and the minister is saying in 2023 that she is working very hard on it and believes we received some shipments. As a result of that, I asked an Order Paper question, and members might be very surprised at the answer. My Order Paper question was this:
With regard to government measures to stop the importation of goods made using forced Uyghur labour in China, since 2016: (a) how many times have such goods been intercepted or seized at points of entry by the Canada Border Services Agency or the RCMP; and (b) what are the details of each instance....
I asked about the description of goods, quality, estimated value and so on. Members would be shocked to know the answer that came back was absolutely nothing. There was zero, zip, zilch. In three years, the government has not been able to seize a single shipment made by forced labour from the Xinjiang region of China. It is a shocking abdication of responsibility. The Minister of International Trade has done absolutely nothing on this in the past three years.
If we want to look at CBSA, the Minister of Public Safety has also completely abdicated his responsibility on this. It has seized absolutely nothing. One might ask what the problem is and say this is probably a complicated thing. Well, guess what. It is not.
Over the same period of time, the United States has seized more than 1,400 shipments. It is taking this seriously. It is living up to its obligations in CUSMA. The United States has seized 1.3 billion dollars' worth of goods over this period of time and what has Canada done? It has done absolutely nothing. It is all talk, no action, not only on this but on virtually any file we want to talk about with the government. However, this is an important one.
The Liberals are going to say that it is really difficult to do this and that it is hard to figure out where goods comes from. Right. It is very hard, but guess what. The United States has put together an entity list, which is a list of companies that are very clearly using forced labour in their supply chains or directly for the manufacture of their goods. That list is publicly available, and I have the entire list right here. If it is so difficult, the minister could cut and paste it, but I know that is hard. The Minister of International Trade has time to approve a very lucrative contract for her friend, but what she does not have the time to do is cut and paste the entity list the United States has created as a result of our trade agreement.
I know we all have to make priorities. A former member of this place, Mr. Dion, once asked, “Do you think it's easy to make priorities?” I suspect that this attitude has leaked into the current government. Cutting and pasting is a very difficult thing to do.
About 1.4 billion dollars' worth of goods was seized from the United States, and there was zero from Canada. This is embarrassing. The Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of International Trade have completely abdicated their responsibilities on this file, and no matter what they say, there is no excuse because there is an easy-to-use list. The United States is not the only one that has a list. There are all kinds of organizations around the world that have done investigations into this, and they have produced lists.
How is it that we cannot give a similar list to CBSA and say that goods coming from these companies must be intercepted at the border? I do not know. I think it would take about 10 minutes. In fact, I would be happy to table this document so the minister can pick it up, get someone to type it up and send the instructions to CBSA. I know it is hard work being in government, but members are not willing to do any of that hard work.
This problem is not getting better, but bear in mind that the government has done absolutely nothing on it. When I say “nothing”, I mean nothing. I got back my Order Paper question, and it has done nothing. As a report by World Vision says, “Unfortunately, Canada is a significant contributor to [the] global problem“ of using child and forced labour in supply chains. “As this report reveals, Canada imported nearly $48 billion in risky goods in 2021”. It goes on to say that that represents a nearly 30% increase since 2016.
Talk about being asleep at the wheel. I mean, the government is not even at the wheel, and the problem is getting worse all the time. I do not understand what it will take for the Liberals to spur themselves to action. I have asked the minister at committee about this, and there have been questions on it in the House of Commons.
Again, I go back to the fact that it is not all that complicated. The United States has published a list and acted quickly. However, it did not just publish a list; it also passed legislation. On December 23, 2021, President Joe Biden signed into law the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act, “which bars the importation into the United States of products made from forced labor in the Xinjiang region of China.”
I became a lawyer because I am not very good at math, but this is almost two years later, in December 2021. What has the government done? Has a single piece of legislation been passed? No. Has it given instructions to CBSA to seize goods from the known list of entities? No. What is even more glaring is that at one point, in an article that talked about this, CBSA said it had seized one shipment to say it was doing something. However, the answer to my OPQ says it has seized absolutely nothing. Actually, I apologize. I said it did not do anything and that was incorrect. It put out an advisory for Canadian businesses doing business in the Xinjiang region. Stop the presses. There were two advisories saying they should check their supply chains.
“Hear, hear!” for the hard work that was done by the government on this file. The government should be absolutely ashamed of what it has done on it. It should be embarrassed by the lack of action it has taken. The Minister of International Trade should be embarrassed because she has done nothing. The Minister of Public Safety should be ashamed as well. They have done absolutely nothing.
This takes very little work. The United States is a trusted partner, and it is part of our Five Eyes intelligence network. If it has published a list of companies using forced labour and seized 1.4 billion dollars' worth of goods, we can do the same thing, but the government has not done it. I would like to know why.
1532 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have no authority to make any declarations other than to say that, yes, it would be a good idea. Since February 13, 1947, Alberta and other neighbouring provinces such as Saskatchewan have contributed substantially to the creation of wealth in this country, to say the least. Over $500 billion has been paid out in equalization to all provinces in Canada.
Need I remind my hon. colleague that we are facing major challenges today with respect to the environment? My colleague cherishes the province of Quebec, as do I. Need I also remind him that, in Quebec alone, we consumed 18 billion litres of oil last year? That is the reality. Surely he does not need me to remind him that the best-selling vehicle in Quebec is the Ford F-150. That is not what I drive. I do not like it.
The reality is that 47% of the oil we consume comes from the United States. As far as I know and since I checked just this morning, neither the state of Texas nor the state of Louisiana is currently contributing to equalization. That may have changed in the last few hours. If I am wrong, my colleague can stand up and say so.
211 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 4:41:08 p.m.
- Watch
We have to resume debate.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 6:54:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to spar with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who is definitely one of my favourite members to talk to in the House.
Let me start by referencing one of the things that the hon. member said in questioning our minister. He said, “The Prime Minister is a very close personal friend of Dominic Barton, who is the managing partner of McKinsey.” As we know, Dominic Barton has not been the managing partner of McKinsey for the last five years and he is not a very close personal friend to the Prime Minister.
In fact, when we had Dominic Barton before our committee, I had a chance to ask Mr. Barton some questions. I asked if he was one of the Prime Minister's five best friends. He said no. I asked if the Prime Minister was one of his 10 best friends. He said no. I asked if the Prime Minister was one of his 25 best friends. He said no. I asked if the Prime Minister was one of his 50 best friends. He said no.
I asked if he had the Prime Minister's phone number. He said no. I asked if he ever had dinner with the Prime Minister. He said no. I asked if the Prime Minister's wife and his wife ever socialized. He said no. I asked if he considered the Prime Minister to be a friend. He said no. I asked if he ever worked out with the Prime Minister. He said no. One of the things I do with my friends is work out. We play tennis, we swim and we run. In any case, I do not think that Dominic Barton is a close personal friend to the Prime Minister.
Another thing that has been referenced again today is that, “Dominic Barton was running a government advisory body while at the same time his company was collecting over $100 million in contracts on the side.” That is also not true. Almost all of the contracts that went to McKinsey, and we are talking about $115 million in contracts, of which about $104 million from our department, Public Services and Procurement Canada, came after Dominic Barton was no longer the managing partner at McKinsey.
Whatever shares he had with McKinsey were divested the moment he left McKinsey. He clarified at committee, and my dear friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was at committee, that he had zero financial interest left in McKinsey and did not have any financial interest at the time that 99% of these agreements were actually entered into with the government.
What we are seeing are two very important issues. There is the question of whether we should be reducing the amount of outsourcing in the federal public service. As we know, federal public servants themselves determine when outsourcing is needed, such as when there is a surge capacity required or when there is work that is outside the core mandate of the federal civil service.
However, that does not mean we should not look and see if we need policies that will further reduce the number of times we outsource, because of course there is an added cost when we outsource. The minister has been tasked, along with the president of the Treasury Board, to look into this specific question.
My hon. friend and I share a very strong commitment to human rights-related foreign policy. One of the things we should be looking at, which we are looking at and I hope the OGGO committee will focus on, is what changes to the integrity regime should disqualify companies from bidding on business from the Government of Canada.
Unfortunately, what has happened is that this has become entangled in a question about McKinsey. There has been a political narrative some people have tried to build that somehow McKinsey is close, personal friends with the government and getting contracts in an untoward manner, which is not the case.
We have unfortunately moved away from the large policy questions we should be focused on, which I think Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc members could perhaps all agree on. Let us get to an OGGO report and let us stop having meetings about McKinsey.
720 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
