SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Senate Bill

Bill S-211

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 04, 2023
Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act
  • This bill, called the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act, aims to address the issue of forced labor and child labor in supply chains. It requires certain government institutions and private-sector entities to report on the measures they have taken to prevent and reduce the risk of forced labor or child labor in their operations and supply chains. The Act also establishes an inspection regime and gives the Minister the power to request information from these entities. Additionally, the bill amends the Customs Tariff to allow for the prohibition of goods manufactured or produced using forced labor or child labor from being imported. Overall, the bill seeks to combat modern slavery and fulfill Canada's commitment to fight against forced labor and child labor.
  • H1
  • H2
  • H3
  • S1
  • S2
  • S3
  • RA
  • Yea (278)
  • Nay (57)
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 266 - Dec/12/23
The Speaker
I am now ready to provide the House with an explanatory ruling on the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. On November 29, 2023, I ruled that the order for consideration of the motion, and the subsequent bill based thereon, be allowed to proceed further. On November 28, 2023, the House leader of the official opposition challenged the admissibility of the motion. He pointed out that Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents), and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services), both currently in committee, were substantially the same as provisions covered in Ways and Means Motion No. 19, tabled earlier that day. Concurrence in a ways and means motion constitutes an order to bring in a bill based on the provisions of the motion. This is indeed what happened with the subsequent introduction of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. The House leader argued that the two private members’ bills had already been the subject of decisions of the House at second reading. The ways and means motion and Bill C-59 would violate a procedural concept, the rule of anticipation, which he described as the “same question rule”. Quoting from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 568, the member seemed to suggest that a ways and means motion could not anticipate a matter already standing on the Order Paper and which was contained in another form of proceeding. He asserted that Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 were more effective tools to accomplish the desired intent than Ways and Means Motion No. 19. As such, both these bills should have priority over the motion. He also cited precedents in relation to bills that could or could not proceed further, based on the fundamental principle that the same question cannot be decided twice within a session. The member further suggested that Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be put in abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, based on the rule of anticipation. For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that further consideration of Ways and Means Motion No. 19, as well as subsequent proceedings on an associated bill, was in order. He referenced past precedents about similar bills. He made the point that the provisions in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contained numerous elements that are not found in Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, which indicates that the principle and scope of the ways and means motion are broader than what is found in either of the bills. As such, Ways and Means Motion No. 19, and the bill based thereon, constituted different questions. In his intervention, the House leader of the official opposition quoted from page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on the rule of anticipation. The Chair would like to read, from the same page, prior to the quoted passage. It states: The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed. Further down on the same page it says, “While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, references to past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are inconclusive.” Even though the notion of anticipation is described in our procedural authorities, and the expression is sometimes colloquially used in points of order and even some past rulings dealing with similar items, it is indeed a very difficult concept to apply in our context. Establishing a hierarchy between bills and motions, or between categories of bills, and giving precedence to some, may prove difficult, except in very specific cases, detailed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Bills and motions are different by nature and achieve different ends. What the Chair is seized with in reviewing the current matter is the rule forbidding the same question from being decided twice in the same session. It is different from the concept of anticipation and, in the view of the Chair, the one that should apply. In his submission, the House leader of the official opposition cited various recent precedents, and the Chair thinks it pertinent to describe some of their procedural subtleties. The first example, from the last Parliament, pertained to two bills not identical, but substantially similar: Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sports betting, a private members' bill, and Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding single event sport betting, a government bill. Both were at second reading and both were very short bills touching the same section of the Criminal Code. By adopting Bill C‑218 at second reading, the House had agreed to the larger principle of repealing the very portion of the Criminal Code that Bill C‑13 also sought to amend. This sequencing left the House with a situation where Bill C‑13 could not move forward as long as Bill C‑218 continued its course. The second example, from earlier this session, described a budget implementation bill, Bill C-19, and a votable private members’ bill amending the Criminal Code regarding the promotion of anti-Semitism, Bill C-250. The latter, introduced on February 9, 2022, contained provisions that were subsequently included in Bill C-19, introduced on April 28, 2022. However, of the two bills, the government bill was the first to be adopted at second reading and referred to committee. One of the key differences was that the two bills were not substantially identical. Bill C-19 was much broader in scope than Bill C-250. By agreeing to Bill C-19, the House de facto agreed with the principles presented in C-250. No decision having yet been made on Bill C-250, the Chair ordered that it be held as pending business until such time as royal assent be granted to Bill C-19. Finally, the member referenced rulings dealing with two votable Private Members’ Business items, Bill C-243, an act respecting the elimination of the use of forced labour and child labour in supply chains, and Bill S-211, an act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff. The two bills had the same objective and only one was allowed to proceed further. The Chair indicated at the time that the case involved an unusual set of circumstances, since normally one of them could have been designated as non-votable by the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business had the sequence of events been different. The House leader's main argument hinged on the question of whether provisions contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and therefore Bill C-59 are similar or identical to Bills C-318 and C-323. Bills C‑318 and C‑323 have been both read a second time and referred to committee, while no decision has yet been made on Bill C‑59. An exhaustive review of its provisions shows that it does contain some similar provisions found in the two aforementioned private members' bills. However, Bill C‑59 cannot be described as substantially similar or identical to them. Its scope is vastly broader, containing many more elements than what is included in Bills C-318 and C-323, including taxation legislation and provisions requiring a royal recommendation The bills are similar in part, but are not substantially the same. The principles of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, as adopted at second reading, are indeed included in the broader Bill C-59, but the reverse is not true. Therefore, the decision the House will take on Bill C-59 will not be the same. Accordingly, there is no procedural reason to stop the bill from continuing its journey through the legislative process. To be clear, when a government bill and a private member's bill or when two private members' bills are substantially similar, only one of them may proceed and be voted on. Once one of the two has passed second reading, a decision cannot be taken on the other within the same session. Where bills are only similar in part, the effect of adopting one might have a different impact on the other depending on their principle, scope and, of course, which bill is adopted first. I note that the House leader of the official opposition rose earlier today on a different point of order considering the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59. I wish to inform the member and the House that I am reviewing the matter closely and I do intend to come back with a ruling in a timely manner. Nonetheless, for the time being, the Chair sees no reason to rule that Bill C-59 be put in abeyance. As for the two Private Members' Business items currently in committee, it seems premature for the Chair to intervene at this time. I thank all members for their attention.
1590 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 266 - Dec/12/23
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)
Madam Speaker, we are already debating third reading of Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, 2023, which the Standing Committee on International Trade had the opportunity to study. Several of my colleagues here were present during the committee study. Fundamentally, not much has changed about the reasons for our support. This time, the agreement puts some meat on the bones. The old version was pretty skeletal. This agreement will not make Ukraine a major trading partner for Quebec and Canada, of course. I would say Ukraine will remain a minor, not to say marginal, partner. However, this agreement does put meat on the bones. It is a real trade agreement, whereas the previous version was essentially a declaration of friendship. We note that there are some promising opportunities for Quebec. Our pork producers will be able to export more to that country. Also, since Quebec is home to many highly reputable engineering firms, there could be some very attractive contracts for them when Ukraine rebuilds. This will also benefit Ukraine economically, and we hope that the rebuilding takes place as soon as possible and that peace is restored quickly. However, I do want to point out that there is one clause I voted against in committee. I asked that it not be agreed to on division, like most of the clauses, and that we proceed to a recorded division. It is the clause concerning investor-state dispute settlement. I do not understand why, after removing this from the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, Canada would go back to negotiating agreements that include such provisions, which place multinationals on the same footing as governments. Yes, it is written very cautiously. There are exceptions, and it is written far more cautiously than the infamous chapter 11 of the former NAFTA agreement, but the fact remains that this still allows multinationals to take states to court when government measures run counter to the company's right to make a profit. Take the following case, for example. Ukraine seized property from Ukrainian citizens who were financing and supporting the Russian side. Under the guise of protecting foreign investors, this agreement would make it very difficult for Canada to do the same thing, that is, seize the assets and property of Ukrainian citizens here who support Russia. Our country could expose itself to lawsuits against public property, against the Canadian government, from these investors. This is unacceptable. We do not understand why it is still in there. When I asked for a recorded vote on this clause, which is in itself undemocratic because it limits the power of the states to legislate and make political decisions, only my NDP colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, voted with me. The Liberals and Conservatives were quick to vote to keep this clause in the bill. The last thing they wanted to do was upset their buddies at the big multinational corporations, of course. I should also point out that one chapter in the agreement is full of lofty principles that the government likes to brag about. These lofty principles include the fact that companies will now behave responsibly and Canadian companies will behave properly, so there is nothing to worry about. However, these are nothing but lofty principles. Of course, this refers to international concepts, and it is in no way binding. That is why I am very proud to say that the only amendment that was adopted was the one I proposed, the Bloc Québécois's amendment. I will read it: That Bill C-57 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 6 the following new clause: “Compliance with principles and guidelines — Canadian companies 15.1 (1) The Minister must ensure that Canadian companies operating in Ukraine comply with the principles and guidelines referred to in article 15.14 of the Agreement. (2) The Minister must establish a process for receiving and responding to complaints of non-compliance with those principles and guidelines. (3) On or before January 1st of each year starting in 2025, the Minister must prepare a report that summarizes activities carried out in relation to the Minister’s obligations under this section. (4) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of Parliament on any of the first 30 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.” Thanks to the Bloc Québécois's work in committee, there has been a shift from lofty principles to an obligation of political accountability that is written into the bill. I think that we can be very proud of the work we have done. That being said, allow me to digress. The issue of Canadian companies respecting all human rights abroad is far from resolved. I want to read an excerpt from budget 2023. It is not partisan, I will read verbatim what is written: Budget 2023 announces the federal government's intention to introduce legislation by 2024 to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains to strengthen the import ban on goods produced using forced labour. The government will also work to ensure existing legislation fits within the government's overall framework to safeguard our supply chains. The budget was presented in March 2023. It says “by 2024”. May I remind the government that it has three days left to keep its promise to introduce legislation before the House adjourns, three days from now? May I remind the government of this, or will it add this to its long list of broken promises? At the Standing Committee on International Trade, I also moved a motion to send the Minister of Labour a letter to remind him of the commitment in his mandate letter. My motion was adopted, with all my colleagues, including the Liberals, voting in favour. The letter was sent. I am glad. I am looking forward to seeing the government's response. Perhaps we will get a nice surprise. Perhaps when we wake up tomorrow morning, the bill will miraculously be introduced and the government will keep its promise. I just want to remind it that it has three days left. Of course, the government may say that there was Bill S-211. That bill requires Canadian companies to prepare an annual report. It does not have much to do with respecting human rights. It only deals with forced labour. It does not cover human rights, which, according to international conventions, are indivisible. We are far from that. Under Bill S‑211, a company could comply just by reporting that it took no due diligence measures. All it has to do is submit a report in which it says it did nothing, and it will meet the requirement. The only consequences, the only fines, are for companies that fail to submit a report or that make false statements. Therefore, if the company reports that it did no due diligence, the government would say, “That is fine, thank you, good night”, and move on to the next company. Only companies with more than 250 employees that generate significant active revenue are covered. Instead, I urge the government to move forward with Bill C-262, which was introduced by the NDP, but which I am co-sponsoring and supporting. It covers companies of all sizes, gets the affected communities involved, encompasses all human rights and, above all, provides meaningful recourse for victims.
1255 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 257 - Nov/28/23
Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)
Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order challenging the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 concerning the fall economic statement implementation bill, which was tabled earlier today by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is my submission that the motion offends the rule against anticipation, sometimes also known as the “same question rule”. That rule is described on page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which reads as follows: The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken on the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with...If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), then the second may be proceeded with. The rule against anticipation has been building a significant number of precedents in the past few years in light of the NDP-Liberal government's growing pattern of stealing common-sense Conservative private members' bills to add to their own legislative agenda. While our authorities suggest that such points of order should be raised only when the second question is actually proposed from the Chair, I recognize that in light of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 being an omnibus proposal, exceeding 500 pages in length, you, Madam Speaker, might appreciate having the evening to reflect on the issues I am about to discuss before the government intends to call it for consideration tomorrow. In the present case, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 includes provisions that the House has already adopted in principle at second reading through two private members' bills. On September 20, the House passed second reading Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, sponsored by the Conservative hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. The summary printed on the inside cover of the bill reads: This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to introduce a new type of special benefits: an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave accordingly. Last week's fall economic statement on pages 43 and 42 states that: The 2023 Fall Economic Statement proposes to introduce a new 15-week shareable EI adoption...Surrogate parents will also be eligible for this benefit. The 2023 Fall Economic Statement also proposes to make amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, as well as corresponding changes to the Canada Labour Code, to ensure that workers in federally regulated industries have the job protection they need while receiving the EI adoption benefit. Those provisions appear as clauses 342 to 365 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. While the legislative language used varies, the ultimate policy objective and therefore the principle of the matter remains the same as a close examination of the two passages I quoted reveals. The second private member's bill stolen by the government this week is Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, mental health services, sponsored by the Conservative member for Cumberland—Colchester, which the House passed at second reading on September 27. My colleague's bill would amend sections 1 and 7 of part II of schedule V of the Excise Tax Act to exempt psychotherapy and mental health counselling from GST. Clause 137 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 would do the exact same thing, except that the government refers to “counselling therapy” instead of Bill C-323's “mental health counselling”. That is, I would submit, a distinction without a difference. Indeed, I would draw the Chair's attention to clause 144 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 that makes coordinating provisions if each is enacted, which demonstrates the government also sees these as identical measures, but what is especially galling is subclause 144(5), “For greater certainty, if this Act receives royal asset then the other Act [Bill C-323] is deemed never to have produced its effects.” The government would prefer to toss my colleague's important bill down the memory hole. That is just shameful. Your predecessor, on February 18, 2021, at page 4256 of the Debates, ruled that government Bill C-13 could not be proceeded with further following the House's adoption of Bill C-218, citing the rule against anticipation. In so ruling, the Chair said: The House is now placed in an unusual situation where a decision was made on one of two very similar bills standing on the Order Paper. The Chair recognizes that both bills are not identical; they are, however, substantially similar as they both amend the exact same provision of the Criminal Code for similar purposes.... Consequently, as long as Bill C-218 follows its course through the legislative process during this session, Bill C-13 may not be proceeded with. As for the technical differences between those two bills, the Speaker offered a common-sense solution to reconcile them: “the Chair notes that other avenues would be open to the House to achieve those same ends, such as through amendments proposed to Bill C-218 during the committee's study.” I would respectfully submit that if the government has any concerns about the drafting of Bill C-318 or Bill C-323, the solution is to bring amendments to committee, not to bigfoot them by throwing them into an omnibus budget bill, but that is exactly what happened here. It is what happened last year when Bill C-250, sponsored by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, was scooped up by the government and placed in Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill. In a May 11, 2022, ruling at page 5123 of the Debates, the Deputy Speaker held: Bill C-19 was adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance yesterday. The House is now placed in a situation where a decision was made on one of the two bills that contain very similar provisions.... The Chair recognizes that these bills are not identical, as Bill C-19 is much broader in scope and contains other provisions related to the implementation of the budget. However, in adopting Bill C-19 at second reading, the House has also agreed to the principle of that bill, and consequently, has agreed, among other things, to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code dealing with hate propaganda. As I explained a few moments ago, these are provisions substantially similar to the ones contained in Bill C-250. Therefore, the question for the Chair is, should Bill C-250 be allowed to proceed further in the legislative process at this time? In the Chair's opinion, it should not be allowed. The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision. In the case of Bill C-250, the Deputy Speaker directed that it be held as pending business until the final fate of Bill C-19 could be determined. On September 20, 2022, your predecessor ordered Bill C-250 to be discharged and dropped from the Order Paper, given that Bill C-19 had by then received royal assent. A similar pair of rulings occurred on June 6, 2022, and May 11, 2023, in respect of Bill C-243 in light of its overlap with Senate Bill S-211. While these rulings are all quite recent, they were not novel. Speaker Michener, on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, reached the same conclusion for managing this sort of legislative traffic jam: Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice. Standing Order 94(1) empowers and directs the Speaker to, “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business”. That standing order, I would submit, behooves you to safeguard the process of Private Members' Business as much as possible by drawing a firm and bright line for the government to stop poaching common-sense Conservative bills and claiming them as their own. One final consideration I want to place before the Chair is one that did not arise in the context of the pairs of bills and the precedents I have cited. We are dealing here with a ways and means motion, not a bill. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 568, explain the relevance of this distinction in the role against anticipation: According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding. The associated footnote points readers to other authorities for a fuller explanation, such as the U.K.'s Erskine May. That book's 25th edition, at paragraph 20.13, explains: ...a matter must not be anticipated if contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it was sought to be anticipated, but it might be anticipated if contained in an equally or less effective form. A bill or other order of the day is more effective than a motion.... This principle was explained matter-of-factly by Speaker Casgrain on February 24, 1936, at page 68 of the Journals: “A Bill has the right-of-way and cannot be sidetracked by a Motion.” In the circumstances, if the precedents and procedural authorities of this House are to be applied consistently, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 must be put into abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323. I would urge you, Madam Speaker, to so rule.
1823 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 217 - Jun/20/23
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, last month Bill S-211, the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act, passed in the House and received royal assent. The bill is now law. It is designed to rid our supply chains of slave products. Simultaneously, in the town of Markham, Shein, a company notorious for selling products made by slaves and child labour at cheap prices, opened up a 170,000-square-foot distribution facility. Ordinary citizens have been protesting on the streets of Markham against having such a company in their community. It is intended that Bill S-211 will be fully operational by this time next year, and the executives of Shein will have to file a compliance transparency statement to the Government of Canada. The additional question is this: How did a company of such a notorious reputation get a building permit for a 170,000-square-foot facility in Markham? Does no one care, or is “cheapest product, any place, any time” the law of this land?
172 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 195 - May/11/23
Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, I first met the member when I was moving a bill through the House of Commons, Bill S-211, on sickle cell awareness. I know she cares. She is a good MP, and she cares about people. She talks about supporting seniors, yet Bloc members have voted against seniors in the House for years. They voted against taking the age of eligibility for retirement benefits from 67 to 65 years of age. They voted against that. I would ask the member why she felt that seniors should have to work two more years to access the benefits they deserve and which they contributed to for decades. It surprises me that someone who cares so much about seniors would vote against seniors on a regular basis.
127 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 195 - May/11/23
The Deputy Speaker
The Chair would like to make a statement regarding the status of Bill C-243, an act respecting the elimination of the use of forced labour and child labour in supply chains, standing in the name of the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. On June 6, 2022, the Chair advised the House of similarities between Bill C-243 and Bill S-211, an act to enact the fighting against forced labour and child labour in supply chains act and to amend the Customs Tariff. Both bills have the same objective. They seek to require certain entities to report on measures they take to prevent, and reduce, the risk of using forced labour and child labour in the production of goods and in supply chains. A long-standing practice prohibits the House from deciding the same question twice during a session. As a result, the Chair ordered that the status of Bill C-243 remain pending pursuant to Standing Order 94(1) and that it not be considered until proceedings on Bill S-211 have concluded. Bill S-211 was adopted by this House on May 3, 2023. The bill subsequently received royal assent yesterday, May 10, 2023. Accordingly, the Chair is ordering that Bill C-243 be dropped from the Order Paper. I thank all members for their attention.
221 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 195 - May/11/23
The Deputy Speaker
Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows: Rideau Hall Ottawa May 10, 2023 Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the schedule to this letter on the 10th day of May, 2023, at 4:59 p.m. Yours sincerely, Maia Welbourne Assistant Secretary to the Governor General The schedule indicates that the bills assented to on Wednesday, May 10, 2023, were Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff—Chapter No. 9, 2023; Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada—Chapter No. 10, 2023; and Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Income Tax Act—Chapter No. 11, 2023.
166 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: Senate Volume 153, Issue 120 - May/4/23
Speake

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

[English]
57 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 190 - May/3/23
The Speaker
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 185 - Apr/26/23
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
27 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 185 - Apr/26/23
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)
Madam Speaker, I want to thank colleagues for participating in this debate. I am probably a bit more enthusiastic about some colleagues than others. Nevertheless, I thank them. This is close to the end of a four-year journey for us. We have introduced this bill a couple of times. However, for World Vision, it has been a 10-year journey. I want to commend the work of Martin Fischer, Michael Messenger and Matthew Musgrave for their tireless work over the last 10 years to get this legislation to where it is today. I also want to recognize my staff, Shawn Boyle; my colleague in the Senate, Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne; and her staff, Jérôme Lussier. Yesterday, Stop the Traffik, a world-leading, U.K.-based anti-trafficking organization had a press release that began, “The Canadian Parliament Debate World-Leading Bill.” I will repeat that for my colleagues who seem to be a little skeptical. It said, “world-leading bill”. The press release continues on the “supply chain transparency and the application of company law and then introduced the concept of governing body signing off on the modern slavery statement, to make the law more meaningful by triggering Director duties and other elements of the legal system.” I will note that it is not just anybody signing off on any statement anytime, anyplace. It continues, “Canada is now proposing to take this legislative approach much further and to add serious penalties – including fines and direct criminal liability for noncompliance.” Those people, who are knowledgeable and working abroad, have noticed the work of Canadians working here at home. Border controls have been tried with not a lot of success. Trade treaties, again, were tried with not a heck of a lot of success. Criminal prosecutions are spotty. ESG and social responsibility efforts are good and are to be encouraged, but again, they are non-enforceable and somewhat sporadic. We are not debating a phantom bill such as my colleagues in the NDP want to debate. Bill C-262 has little or no chance of getting on the floor. What is on the floor is Bill S-211, and Bill S-211 is a transparency bill which, over time, has morphed into more of a due-diligence bill with due-diligence characteristics. I want to remind colleagues that Bill S-211 carries fines, and not insignificant fines. The bill would entitle the minister to search and seize computers and other records, entitle the minister to a warrant, create indirect criminal liability for non-compliance and false statements, and have financial consequences for failure to file a report. To be truthful, these have consequences, financial and regulatory, which some of my hon. colleagues may not fully appreciate. The bill would also give the minister the ability to draft regulations that may over time become tougher each year. I sincerely want to acknowledge the work of the Minister of Labour and his commitment in budget 2023 to introduce legislation in 2024 that would eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and to strengthen the ban on goods produced using forced labour. I am not pretending that Bill S-211 is the final step. It is a first step, and the first step actually puts us at the head of all nations who have legislation such as this. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favour of the bill, as it is a useful way to move us from laggard to leader.
593 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 185 - Apr/26/23
Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be one of the last people to speak to this bill. My colleague opposite and I worked together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security when he was chair, and I know that he worked hard on this. I therefore commend him for his work. I also want to commend Senator Miville‑Dechêne for her work. I know that almost everything has already been said about this bill in the House, but I think it is important to put things into context. In order to do so, I referenced the open letter that Senator Miville‑Dechêne wrote in La Presse last November. The letter had to do with a subject or a reality that we know very little about or that we are aware of but would prefer to cravenly ignore. I am talking about forced labour and child labour. Like many of my colleagues mentioned, these types of labour help provide consumers in wealthy countries like Canada with all sorts of products at low prices. This is not a new concept. The International Labour Organization's Forced Labour Convention defines forced labour as “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily”. The International Labour Organization estimates that in 2019, 25 million children and adults were in forced labour. World Vision Canada estimates that Canadian imports worth $43 billion may have been produced through the work of children and forced labour in 2020. That is nearly 7% of Canadian imports that come from forced labour. It is likely that the pandemic brought this sad phenomenon into sharper focus. The race to procure personal protective equipment exacerbated the exploitation of the most vulnerable. For example, in October 2021, the United States seized at its border a shipment of medical gloves from a Malaysian company alleged to rely on forced labour. It was the fourth Malaysian business to be hit with this type of sanction in 15 months alone. Our own country bought and used millions of gloves from two of these tainted suppliers, even though a law has been in place for more than a year at the border to ban the entry of such shipments. As you can see, this is not enough to prevent the phenomenon from spreading to our borders. This forced labour or child labour—which is sometimes referred to as modern slavery—has infiltrated our everyday consumption for a very long time, especially in the western world. Unfortunately, on this issue, Canada has just sat idly by, unlike many European parliaments. The UK, France and Germany have already passed laws that require companies to investigate and report on the risks of forced labour in their supply chains. While reading up on the topic yesterday, I came across a news report on Radio-Canada's RAD platform about fast fashion. It is a phenomenon that led to the 2013 factory collapse in Bangladesh that killed over 1,000 people. Ten years later, there are questions about whether working conditions in the textile industry have improved. This is an industry that produces clothes that we wear here—brands like Mango and Joe Fresh. The answer, unfortunately, is quite definite. The rights of the workers in this industry are still being violated and their working conditions are still poor. People even said they had concerns about their health. As long as we do not change our economic model, then forced labour is here to stay. What is being done to prevent this, to ensure that Canada is not contributing to forced labour? We need to require companies to be more transparent about their practices in order to eradicate the risks of forced labour and child labour in their supply chains. That is a good place to start. Is that enough? Unfortunately, the answer is no. That is where we see that Bill S‑211, although it is a very good bill, may not go far enough. I was given a comparative chart on the difference between Bill S‑211 and Bill C‑262. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot spoke earlier to Bill C‑262, which he co-sponsored. When we ask the basic question of whether the bill ensures respect for human rights, the chart tells us that for Bill S‑211, the answer is no. That is because the entire responsibility for reporting and investigating is placed on the companies, but they are not asked to take action. Conversely, Bill C‑262 “recognizes that companies have a responsibility to respect human rights, and must proactively take steps to prevent human rights violations throughout their supply chains and global operations.” When we ask ourselves this basic question, we already know that if we have to choose one of these bills, we will choose the more binding bill. We voted in favour of Bill S‑211 at second reading because, as I mentioned, it would require Canadian companies to be more transparent about the measures they are taking to prevent and reduce the risk that forced labour or child labour is used in their supply chains. This is a very good thing, but the question is and remains: Can we go even further? The answer is yes. In reading about the subject, I learned that although the United States sometimes lags behind Canada, in this particular area, it is quite the opposite. The rules that apply at the borders are more restrictive in the United States. We would do well to emulate that country or to draw inspiration from it.
971 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 185 - Apr/26/23
Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)
Madam Speaker, it is nice to rise in the House to speak to a bill that comes to us from our colleagues in the Senate, where there is general agreement among the parties that there needs to be action taken on this issue. After listening to some of the speeches earlier today, it does not sound as though there is going to be unanimous support in the House for this bill, but I think there will be enough to get it across the finish line. I am a father of three and a grandfather of 10 children, some of whom may even be watching today. The issues related to children are very important to me today, as I think they are to all of us in the House. I am pleased to have the opportunity to share my thoughts on this bill, which our friends in the Senate have put before us. I want to thank Senator Miville-Dechêne for presenting this bill, as well as Bill S-210, which I am also very strongly in favour of. The latter is a bill that calls for age-verification methods to be implemented to protect children from online pornography, another type of exploitation. It passed the Senate last week and I hope we will be debating it in the House very soon. UNICEF, in its 2021 report, showed that the number of children involved in child labour had risen to 160 million worldwide, an increase of 8.4 million over the preceding four years, the first significant increase in this generation. The most significant jump was for kids aged five to 11, and the number of children doing hazardous work rose from 6.5 million to 79 million between 2016 and 2020. Again, those numbers are from UNICEF. We know who the culprits are. We know which corporate entities are utilizing child labour, and we know about the children in Congo getting sent down mines to bring up the cobalt so that we here in Canada can have the latest device or drive an electric car. However, it goes even deeper than that, with many layers to consider. Canadians are great people. We are kind, generous and compassionate. We can ask any Canadian if they think that child or forced labour is a bad thing and every one of them would say yes. If we ask them if the Government of Canada should do something about it, they will say, “Yes, we must.” Should we ban products produced with forced labour or child labour? Absolutely. That is good, but what are they willing to give up in order for that to happen? I realize that it is hardly that simple, but, really, that is the question. To be honest, most Canadians would be shocked to discover what products we use and enjoy on a daily basis that, in fact, contribute to robbing children of their freedoms. While I may not always see eye to eye with my colleague from Vancouver East, I would like to reference some statistics from her speech in March. According to a 2016 report from World Vision, it is estimated that 1,200 companies operating in Canada are importing over 34 billion dollars' worth of goods produced by child or forced labour every single year, and that is right here in Canada. I serve a rural riding and I am an agriculture kind of guy. Canada's farmers are the best in the world, but internationally, the agriculture and grocery industries are among the worst offenders for forced labour and child labour. Seventy-one per cent of all child labour takes places in the agriculture sector, and many of its items end up on Canadian grocery store shelves. In 2019, more than 3.7 billion dollars' worth of these food products were imported into Canada, a 63% increase from 10 years ago. I look at that number and think about the fact that, as Canadians, we waste somewhere around 58% of the food we produce here in Canada. According to research done by Toronto-based Second Harvest, some 4.8 million tonnes of food is lost or wasted during processing and manufacturing and some 2.38 million tonnes is lost at the consumer level. In short, the abundance of food we produce here in Canada has led us to dismiss its intrinsic value and we actually waste more than we consume. In a world struggling to feed itself and in a country where one in five families is struggling to feed itself, it is hard to fathom those numbers. Then we turn a blind eye and import billions of dollars' worth of food from countries and companies where we know it is kids slaving to produce it. It is mind-boggling. It is so wrong. I am glad we are having this conversation. I am glad we have this bill, and there are positive aspects of this legislation. However, I just wish this bill had more teeth. The legislation is great in principle, but there are still some problems with this bill. Given that this will likely be the last chance we have to address these issues, I am going to raise a few of them here. First, the bill does not prescribe what specific measures a company must take to be in compliance. Yes, it includes general guidance as to what information should be provided, but it is the reporting entities themselves that will retain discretion over the design and implementation of compliance systems. The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, which includes such members as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch Canada, puts it more bluntly. It states that Bill S-211 would only apply to a small minority of companies and it “does not require companies to stop using child or forced labour....or to conduct human rights due diligence.” If that is the case, or even if we are just leaving it up to the individual companies to police themselves, which in some cases is the very reason why this type of legislation is necessary and has been brought forward, then this legislation may really not have the teeth we all want it to have. I think this is a situation where it is appropriate for the government to give specific and binding measures and standards to remediate forced labour or child labour in order to be in compliance; otherwise, this is what I see happening. We will pass this bill. Let us pick a corporation. We will call it the Orange Company. For years, it has used child labour to source its material and build its products. When this legislation comes into effect, Orange Company needs to send its report to the minister's office, so it looks at the guidelines, creates its own reporting system and prepares a report. Who needs to approve this report? If we look at part 2, subsection 4(a), it is the entity's governing body. What other verification is required? One signature. It states in subsection 5(b), “the signature of one or more members of the governing body.” Without me needing to stretch out this illustration, we can foresee how this does not provide sufficient accountability. Not only that, the systemic concerns run deep, far deeper than what I have time to discuss here. Let me affirm the efforts identifying, in part 2, subsection 12(1), the minister's prerogative of asking for a revised report in the event of skepticism. I can imagine how this step would force companies to dig deeper and divulge more. However, the consequence for non-compliance is only a fine, really a small fine compared to the revenue that many of these companies will actually generate. I recognize this legislation is a starting point and we do need to start somewhere, but like so many other topics, this requires a much broader national conversation, one that considers all different layers, including those of the victims. We can slap on band-aids and promise the world, then pat ourselves on the back, but real change always comes with a cost, a cost that would probably infringe on some of the many treasured items that we use daily. That is true of the economy and it is true of our society. Author Rosie Danan wrote: Change always comes with a closing cost. But it's still worth trying. Not because the odds are particularly good, mind you, but considering the alternative. There's value in the struggle. Value in touching the raw and bloody parts of our souls, opening them up to the sunlight, and hoping they heal. As parliamentarians, we have the ability to pass a child and forced labour law that has teeth. We have the ability to ensure that no products made with forced or child labour enter Canada. We can levy severe financial or criminal penalties on those entities that use forced labour, and that do or want to do business here in Canada. We can do all that. The question is this: As Canadians, is that really something that we are willing to do?
1526 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 185 - Apr/26/23
Mr. Terry Sheehan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, Lib.)
Madam Speaker, first I would like to acknowledge that this debate is taking place on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. I want to begin by stating that the government will be supporting the bill. The Minister of Labour has a mandate to introduce government legislation that will eradicate forced labour in our supply chains. This was also part of a platform promise in our last election. In budget 2023, we committed to introducing that legislation by the end of next year. The government's priority is to pass the most effective legislation possible. Bill S-211 represents an important first step, and through government legislation, we will seek not only to improve upon it, but to go further. How prevalent is this problem? The latest numbers from the International Labour Organization estimate that there are over 27 million victims of forced labour worldwide. This number has increased by 2.7 million people since 2016, in part due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we have strong indication that this number still likely underestimates the pandemic's full effects on forced labour. In addition, global estimates indicate that at the beginning of 2020 there were approximately 160 million children who were victims of child labour, including forced child labour, and this number, too, is expected to rise, given increased poverty driven by the pandemic. These types of practices are deplorable, and our government strongly condemns the use of forced labour and all forms of exploitation in the production of goods. This issue has garnered attention on a global scale. In fact, many countries have introduced or announced measures to address labour exploitation in supply chains, including different forms of supply chain legislation. Others have import prohibitions on goods produced using forced labour, such as the U.S., Canada and, soon, Mexico. The European Union is considering a regulatory proposal on prohibiting forced labour goods from its market as well. Fighting forced labour and child labour is a complex problem that demands a comprehensive solution. Supply chains are becoming increasingly multi-faceted, with multiple tiers that could involve a parent company, a subsidiary company, suppliers and subcontractors spread across the world. This makes it difficult to pinpoint at which stage forced labour, child labour or other forms of exploitation may occur. Despite this, our government is taking action. Over the past few years, the government has introduced a number of initiatives to help tackle labour exploitation in global supply chains. For example, when it comes to negotiating trade agreements with other countries, we include comprehensive and enforceable labour provisions to protect workers, and we help uphold those protections, including by providing assistance to partner countries in meeting these obligations. For example, we are providing funding through World Vision Canada to increase protections against child and forced labour in several agricultural sectors in Mexico. In addition, in July 2020, we included a ban in the Customs Tariff to prohibit the importation into Canada of goods that are mined, manufactured or produced by forced labour. This is a relatively novel mechanism to address the issue, with the United States being the only other country with such a ban in place, which has evolved over the last 90 years. Departments are in regular contact with American counterparts to learn from the expertise they have built up over decades. We have also taken steps toward strengthening federal procurement. Its entire contracting regime has changed, including updating the government's code of conduct for procurement to include clear expectations for suppliers and their subcontractors when it comes to human and labour rights. In 2022, our government introduced a new responsible business conduct strategy. The strategy focuses on ways to build awareness and increase company-led due diligence and accountability. We know that government action alone is not enough. We need all hands on deck: government, industry and civil society. As I have mentioned, the COVID-19 pandemic has widened social inequalities and increased the risk of fundamental labour and other human rights violations for the most vulnerable around the world. If we want to make Canadian supply chains more resilient and sustainable for years to come, we must eliminate forced labour and employ a range of measures to address exploitation in supply chains. This is a priority for the government and a key mandate commitment for the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Public Safety, as well as the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development. While labour exploitation is a global problem, we must also take an approach that fits the Canadian context. In 2019, the government held extensive consultations on this issue with more than 55 stakeholders in Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver. We also held online consultations and garnered more than 100 responses. Last spring, the Government of Canada released a report entitled, “Labour Exploitation in Global Supply Chains: What We Heard Report”. This report captures everything our stakeholders shared through those consultations. They told us loud and clear that labour exploitation, including forced labour, is unacceptable and that the Government of Canada should take further action to address it. Since then, our government has continued to engage with numerous stakeholders on the issue of forced labour in supply chains, including civil society organizations, advocacy groups, industry, foreign governments and international organizations. In recognition of what we heard from stakeholders and international developments on this issue, we have been gathering information on global best practices from international partners and organizations, including further input received from stakeholders on key elements that often form part of supply chain legislation. These include the scope of potential legislation, the type of requirements that should be imposed on businesses, the entities that should be captured by the legislation and other potential flexibilities that could be considered, the approach to enforcement and governance, as well as non-legislative tools and other measures that are needed to support entities in meeting their obligations under supply chain legislation. There is no doubt that the sponsor of this bill has done a tremendous amount of work and has worked on this for many years. Many members from many parties have also undertaken this work. I also want to thank those in the other place for the work they have done, including the other sponsor of this bill. This is an extremely important issue, and for that we continue to applaud the tireless efforts of our esteemed colleagues. We must act, but also, as has been said in this chamber, legislation cannot just be words on paper. The legislative framework needs to be on strong legal and operational footings. It should be in line with the latest approaches being undertaken by like-minded countries, with whom we must collaborate to end this scourge. We need to equip businesses and other regulated parties to comply, and ensure that expertise and capacity exist for the regulator to monitor and enforce, so the legislation has the desired impact, and so it is a strong legislative framework that will be effectively enforced. Ultimately, while this is a complex endeavour, we are committed to doing this work, and we will get it done. In closing, I want to once more make it clear that forced labour is unacceptable in Canada or any place in this world. This bill represents an important first step, but it will not be the last one. Working with parliamentarians, industry and civil society, the government has committed to developing and introducing legislation that will go further. Everyone has the same goal here, which is eradicating forced labour from Canada's supply chains. The Government of Canada is committed to that work, and to employing a range of measures so that Canadian businesses do not contribute to this or other forms of human rights abuses. We will do everything in our power to ensure that goods coming into the country, our stores and our homes, and that the practices companies are engaging in abroad, are free from the stain of forced labour.
1346 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 185 - Apr/26/23
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)
Madam Speaker, I want to thank members of the community who have stepped up for the Simon Fraser University football team. As members know, the administration at SFU cut the football program just a few weeks ago. This program has produced some of the best football players in Canada. We have had a remarkable reaction from the public, which put in place a financial plan that ensures the continuity of the program. It is now really up to the SFU administration to reverse its decision and stop the cuts to the program. I am here to talk about Bill S-211. To avoid the problem that my colleague had, I will start by saying that the NDP will be voting against this bill because it is an empty shell. It does nothing to change the situation of people experiencing systemic human rights violations around the world. I will talk about a few cases later in my speech. The fact of the matter is that this bill really does nothing to change an extremely difficult situation when it comes to human rights violations. I just have to speak of three of the many examples of systemic human rights violations that have taken place on the grounds of Canadian companies. We can think about this for just a moment. Canada is standing up for human rights, but when it comes to some of our corporations acting abroad, they have acted in the most nefarious ways and trampled on basic human rights. Bill S-211 would not address any of the three examples I will give, which is why we need robust legislation. I appreciate my colleague from the Bloc Québécois endorsing NDP bills, which I will speak about in a moment, from me and the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona, the NDP foreign affairs critic. The first example is about forced labour by Nevsun in Eritrea. Forced labour, or slavery, occurs on the grounds of a Canadian-owned company. This is the most outrageous abuse of human rights, and yet it is connected to Canada. We must all bear the shame of a company that acts in that way and allows systemic slavery on its grounds. The second example is in El Salvador, and the company involved is Pacific Rim. We are talking about the most egregious, horrific torture and murder of environmental activists who were speaking up against the mine. Again, here is an example of a Canadian company functioning abroad with systemic human rights violations. The third example is Barrick Gold in Papua New Guinea. We are talking about systemic sexual violence and torture of many women in the area of that mine. In all these cases, the judicial systems simply do not work. There is no protection from government. We are talking about corrupt judicial systems and police who have been paid off. We are talking about a complete Wild West for human rights violations. Each one of these examples, most egregiously, involves Canadian companies. Members can imagine the horrific results for the victims, whether we are talking about forced labour and slavery, systemic sexual violence or the torture and murder of environmental activists. This is why we need legislation that will actually do the job to force companies to comply and ensure that those companies are held liable and held to account. There simply cannot be two fates for Canadian companies, one when they are subject to the rule of law here in Canada and a second in the Wild West, where the most outrageous, atrocious human rights violations can occur with impunity on the grounds of these Canadian firms, and where these companies can act without any regard for fundamental human rights and values. This is why I brought forward Bill C-262. I want to state very clearly that this bill that I am presenting on the floor, Bill C-262, comes after incredible work by the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability. It includes activists from some of the most significant organizations in Canada, such as Oxfam Canada, Amnesty International Canada and Human Rights Watch Canada, along with a number of very important labour organizations, in both the private and the public sectors. They are all standing together to say that Canada's appalling corporate human rights violations abroad need to be treated with the rigour and the type of legislative framework that will force companies to stop these appalling abuses and practices. The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability did much of the vital groundwork for the bill that I am bringing forward, Bill C-262. This is a bill that would actually address human rights abuses. It would hold companies to account and force them to do their due diligence before an investment. It would make them liable. These are just three cases among many. If there was systemic sexual violence, torture and murder of activists, or slavery or forced labour, the companies would be held to account. The directors and leaders of those companies would be held to account. That is why Bill S-211 falls so far short. It is just an empty box that asks a few companies to prepare some kind of report. It does not hold them liable. It does not hold them to account. It does not force them to stop the most egregious human rights violations that are taking place in their operations on their property. If those companies can be proud of their relationship to Canada, I can say that Canadians are not proud of those companies' relationship with Canada; we have done nothing. The current and previous governments did nothing to address violations that continue to this day. It may be a different country. It may be a different set of appalling human rights violations, but the reality is that what we are seeing is these companies acting with impunity. That is why Bill C-262 is so very important. It would force an end to slavery, forced labour and systemic sexual violence. It would force an end to companies' security guards torturing and killing activists, who are speaking up for their community, with impunity. These are all things that need to be addressed, and that is why I wanted to thank the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability and all its member organizations, which worked so assiduously on this for Canada to finally start addressing the elephant in the room. We pay lip service to human rights abroad, but we do nothing to force our companies, as well as their directors and leaders, to be accountable for the actions that they allow to take place on their property and in their operations. The NDP, as the worker bees in this Parliament, tried to improve Bill S-211. We tried to give it a backbone. We tried to take the empty box that is Bill S-211 and bring some content to it. We offered half a dozen amendments that come from the activist sector, those organizations that are most attuned to the issue of human rights. We saw Liberals and Conservatives systematically rejecting each one of those amendments. We can just think about that for a moment. Every member of Parliament is aware of the appalling human rights abuses that have taken place through Canadian companies acting abroad. A bill that pays only lip service to that is before a committee. The NDP offered amendments that would actually make the bill meaningful, and the Conservatives and the Liberals voted against them. We will be voting against this bill, and we will be bringing forward very strong human rights legislation. That is what the world calls for, and that is what Canadians deserve.
1281 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 185 - Apr/26/23
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their solidarity. I just wanted to add that all of this, along with the Bloc Québécois amendments that were rejected in committee, unfortunately mean that we must oppose the bill.
41 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 185 - Apr/26/23
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak this evening as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade. The themes we are discussing are definitely linked to this issue. Of course, we are all in favour of trade, but not at any environmental, human or social cost. I believe that this means that we should study this bill very diligently. Before dealing with the substance of the bill, I would like to salute the absolute sincerity of the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and also of Senator Miville‑Dechêne. Since 2018, they have tried three times to pass a bill about this issue. Therefore, I want to say that I admire their efforts. We know that the member for Scarborough—Guildwood has been looking at potential corporate abuses abroad for a long time. Back in 2010, he introduced a bill to make Canadian mining companies abroad accountable. It was defeated. We had a minority Conservative government at the time. With support from the opposition parties, it could have passed, but it was defeated because too many members of his own party had fallen ill at the same time. Consequently, he did not have enough votes to get it passed. It is a shame, because it would have been a bit of a step forward at the time. I also have to say that this is an issue that is very important to me, both personally and in my capacity as critic. I recall moving a motion for unanimous consent that set out what a true due diligence policy could look like. I think that is the right term. Unfortunately, I could hear shouts of “no” off to my right, in every sense. The Conservatives yelled “no” so it did not pass. I also tabled a petition in favour of such a law, such a policy, last June, if I am not mistaken, signed by nearly 2,000 Quebeckers who were calling for due diligence legislation. I also have here the report of the Standing Committee on International Trade that was tabled in the House not that long ago, regarding the study it did on the activities of Canadian mining companies abroad. We heard a lot of testimony on that subject, some of which made my blood run cold. We are talking about mining companies, of course, because we have often heard about the abuses committed by Canadian mining companies abroad. However, we could also talk about the textile industry, which, as members know, is hardly above reproach. Then there are the coffee, cocoa and palm oil industries. There are tons of industries like those, where we know that their activities and ways of doing things are having real consequences. Even if we like to have these sorts of products on our store shelves, there is an ethical and humane way of doing things. It should be noted that Canada is a paradise for mining companies. Because Canada is a flag of convenience, a lot of companies that are not actually Canadian will come register here, incorporate here, because of the legal, tax and speculative advantages that the Canadian framework provides. After that, there is no real mechanism, except for this puppet ombudsman that was created by Ottawa a few years ago and that ultimately just gives this or that excuse, giving the government the right to say that it has taken action. Taking action can be dangerous. Empty shells can be dangerous. Even certain policies can be dangerous, when they start out with laudable intentions but ultimately cause us to sit back and do nothing, unfortunately. I would of course also like to talk about Bill C-226, which was proposed by my NDP colleagues and which I am co-sponsoring. I gladly put my name on it. A cause like that should not be partisan. It is too important. Lives are at stake; human dignity is at stake. That is why I am co-sponsoring the bill. Unfortunately, I am going to have to make a comparison that is not very flattering for Bill S-211 and compare it to Bill C-262. The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability produced an excellent document entitled “Don't Mistake Reporting for Accountability”. The subtitle states, “Canada must require Canadian companies to respect human rights throughout their supply chains.” This document contains a wonderfully clear, concise chart that compares the two bills. I would like to read it for all our colleagues who are present. This chart compares the features of Bill S‑211 and Bill C‑262, the bill I co-sponsored that was introduced by our NDP colleagues. The first question is, “Does it require companies to respect human rights?” In the case of Bill S‑211, unfortunately the answer is no. The chart states that the bill requires companies “to report annually on whether they took steps to identify and prevent the use of forced labour, and what they found. It does not require companies to respect human rights.” In the case of Bill C‑262, the answer is yes. The chart states that the bill “recognizes that companies have a responsibility to respect human rights, and must proactively take steps to prevent human rights violations throughout their supply chains and global operations.” Here is the second question: “Does it require companies to prevent harm?” In the case of Bill S‑211, the answer is no. The chart states that the bill “requires an annual report” but that it “does not require companies to prevent harm.” In the case of Bill C‑262, the answer is yes. The chart states that the bill “creates an explicit obligation for companies to prevent serious adverse impacts throughout their supply chains and global operations.” Here is the third question: “Does it require companies to take steps to identify, mitigate, prevent and account for human rights and environmental harm in their supply chains?” We are talking about due diligence here. In the case of Bill S‑211, unfortunately, the answer is no. The chart states that “[c]ompanies are not required to take any due diligence measures. A company may report that it has not taken measures and be in compliance with the law.” In the case of Bill C‑262, the answer is yes because there is “an explicit obligation for companies to put in place adequate due diligence procedures.” The fourth question is, “Are there meaningful consequences if companies cause harm or fail to implement adequate due diligence procedures?” In the case of Bill S‑211, the answer is no, because “[t]here are no consequences for failure to prevent harm or for failure to implement due diligence procedures.” In the case of Bill C‑262, the answer is yes because the bill “provides people with a statutory right to sue a company”. That is the important part. That is what is missing from the role of the ombudsman, which basically serves as an online complaints office. It is a nice website the government created a few years ago. The fifth question is, “Does it help affected people to access justice or remedy?” In the case of Bill S‑211, the answer is no. The bill does not address this. In the case of Bill C‑262, the answer is yes, because “[t]here are several ways in which the legislation helps address existing barriers to accessing Canadian courts.” The sixth question is, “Does it provide agency to impacted communities / workers?” In the case of Bill S‑211, the answer is “no”, because “[t]here is no role for impacted community human rights defenders and workers.” In Bill C‑262, however, “[c]onsultation with rights holders is required in a company's due diligence procedures.” Here is the seventh question: “Does it apply to companies of all sectors and all sizes, down the entire chain?” Bill S‑211 applies only to “companies with 250+ employees, with significant revenue or assets.” However, Bill C‑262 “applies to companies of all sizes, from all sectors, down the entire value chain.” Human rights abuses need to be called out, no matter how big the business is or how much money it makes. Here is the eighth question: “Does it apply to all human rights?” Bill S‑211 applies to forced labour and child labour. We applaud that and are quite pleased. However, “[t]his ignores the internationally accepted principle that human rights are indivisible, interrelated and interdependent, a principle upheld by successive Canadian governments.” In contrast, Bill C-262 “upholds the principle that companies must respect all human rights. It makes reference to the core international human rights conventions, the fundamental ILO conventions...” and even “makes specific reference to the right to a safe, healthy and sustainable environment.” Now that is real legislation with teeth. Now, what do we do with Bill S‑211? Of course we know that it could be a step in the right direction. We know that an obligation to report cannot be a bad thing in and of itself. However, as with the ombudsman created by the government, these situations have extremely serious consequences, particularly at a time when we are thinking about a new world order post-COVID-19. In this new world order, trade would not be an absolute, and we could show more respect for sovereign states, the environment and peoples. Unfortunately—
1652 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 185 - Apr/26/23
Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill S-211, the fighting against forced labour and child labour in supply chains act. I want to share a story from the International Justice Mission about the real impact of forced labour and slavery. “Like most ten-year-old boys, Suriya was a dreamer. If you asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up, his answer might change depending on the day. A famous singer, an artist, a policeman, a pilot, a cricket player.” One day, a cyclone hit southern India and destroyed Suriya's village. Suriya, his mother and his siblings all survived, but his father did not. Due to their desperate situation, Suriya's mother was pressured into taking a loan from a neighbouring farmer that required Suriya to work for the farmer. “At only ten years old, Suriya's dreams, childhood and freedom were taken. Instead of the loving embrace of his mother, Suriya was beaten repeatedly with a stick. Instead of walking to school in the morning, he was forced to herd over 200 goats alone for miles.” Thanks to the partnership of a local organization in India, IJM was able to find Suriya, bring him home safely and “fight for justice against the man who exploited his family.” While Suriya was freed, millions more men, women and children remain in slavery today. In fact, it is estimated that today there are over 50 million people in slavery. That is why this issue is so important, and I am glad we are debating Bill S-211 here today. As one of the co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, it has been my honour to help advance this bill and work across party lines with my colleagues. I want to thank in particular the sponsor in the House of this bill, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, who has relentlessly championed this issue for years in this place, and our colleague Senator Miville-Dechêne, who brilliantly steered it through the Senate. I thank both other co-chairs of the APPG, along with the member for Shefford, and their offices for all they have done. I also want to recognize the hard work of their staff, people like Shawn Boyle, Jérôme Lussier and Joel Oosterman, who have been integral to assisting us with getting this bill done. The APPG has been doing great work over the last few years, and I just want to take the opportunity to let members know that our AGM is coming up on May 8. We welcome anyone else who wants to join the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking at the AGM. Come and join us to strengthen Canada's efforts to combat human trafficking. Human trafficking and modern-day slavery turn people into objects to be used and exploited. It is a vicious, growing and profitable crime here in Canada and around the world. Earlier this spring, the York Regional Police announced that 64 men and women from Mexico were trafficked to work here in Ontario. I want to thank the officers for their hard work to apprehend the traffickers and rescue the victims. This vicious crime robs people of their God-given dignity and freedom. Over the past few years, due to the pandemic, the estimated number of people enslaved or trafficked has risen from 40 million to over 50 million. These people are harvesting our coffee or the sugar we eat or making the clothes we wear, and while we finally will be updating our laws to prohibit imports made from slavery, our enforcement to this point has been terrible. In fiscal year 2021-22, the U.S. intercepted 2,300 shipments suspected of being tied to forced labour or slavery. Canada intercepted one, and that shipment was ultimately appealed and let through. Canada does not yet require any companies to ensure their supply chains are free of slavery. That is why Bill S-211 is so important. This bill would require federal departments and large companies that do business in Canada to produce an annual report detailing the measures taken to prevent or mitigate the risks of forced labour or child labour in their supply chains. These reports would be made public, and there would be penalties for making false or misleading statements. It is not necessary to get too much into the details of the bill at this stage. The bill has already gone through the Senate stages and has been at committee. In this House, it has gone through second reading and committee study, and we do not have to debate the bill to pass it. We know how long it takes for the government to simply implement legislation. With any further debate, this bill will be delayed, as will the ability for Canada to increase transparency and help stop slavery in our supply chains. I want to draw members' attention to the former British member of Parliament and abolitionist William Wilberforce, who, motivated by his Christian faith, spent decades fighting against the transatlantic slave trade, every year reintroducing a bill to end it, only to see the bill defeated or delayed. He was eventually successful, but often impeding his efforts were the attempts by other MPs to change or amend the bill, or calls to delay or take a different approach. Those delays resulted in prolonged suffering and enslavement of countless Africans. That is why it is deeply disappointing to see that there are parties in the House who plan to vote against this bill. That is shocking. These parties make up similar excuses to those of Wilberforce's opponents as to why they cannot support the bill. No one is suggesting this bill is the only step Canada needs to take, but it is an important step nonetheless. There are other approaches we can and must take. For example, Canada should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to modern-day slavery and human trafficking. Three weeks ago, I was in Winnipeg at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, and we brought together survivors and leaders in the fight against human trafficking. The symposium was organized by Paul Brandt and #NotInMyCity, the Rotary Action Group Against Slavery, the Mekong Club and the International Justice Mission. The focus of that conference was to galvanize support for “The Canada Declaration”, a document that outlines the reality of humanity trafficking in our country and around the world, and looks for Canada to take a zero-tolerance approach that was informed by the voices of survivors. The co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking had the honour of addressing the leaders in that room, and we are committed to bringing this declaration back to Parliament and urging our colleagues in the government to implement these calls to action. Part of the declaration states: We acknowledge that reconciliation with indigenous peoples requires Canada to take a concerted effort to end the factors that lead to the their over-representation as Victims of Human Trafficking. We also recognize the resilience and courage of Survivors who have spoken out and raised their voices and lament that far too often, their voices have not been centered or heard.... We recognize that the maintenance of freedom requires diligence and sacrifice. We recognize that Human Trafficking is a multi-faceted crime and requires a comprehensive, holistic and country wide effort to fight it on every front.... That is why we are calling on the Government of Canada and all Canadians to adopt a Zero Tolerance approach to end Human Trafficking. One of the calls to action in “The Canada Declaration” is for Canada to implement robust measures that require supply chain reporting of Canadian companies. That is what this bill would do. It would help Canada move forward to a zero-tolerance approach, and that is why I believe that this bill should not be delayed any further. If it is in our power to help end slavery and bring freedom to men, women and children around the globe by passing this bill, why would we delay its adoption one moment longer? Just yesterday, all members of Parliament received a letter from Peter Talibart, a Canadian and an international employment lawyer based in the U.K. Peter appealed to parliamentarians to adopt Bill S-211 and pointed to its strengths as it compares to existing international approaches. For example, unlike the U.K. and Australian laws, Bill S-211 proposes serious penalties, including fines and direct criminal liability. In fact, those countries are looking to adopt an approach that is reflected in this bill. Peter ends his letter by saying that we know more about the wood in our chair, the coffee in our cup and the tobacco we smoke than we do about the welfare of the millions of men, women and children that produced them, and that that is wrong. I urge all members to support the immediate adoption of Bill S-211. Again, I want to thank the MP for Scarborough—Guildwood, our colleagues in the Senate and all who have worked so hard to get this bill to where it is today. I want to leave members with the words of William Wilberforce as he challenged his parliamentary colleagues to action over 200 years ago. He said, “Having heard all this you may choose to look the other way but you can never again say that you did not know.”
1615 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 170 - Mar/21/23
Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.)
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 170 - Mar/21/23
Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)
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!
  • star_border