44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 21, 2022
- 04:47:21 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the invitation to be here.
My name is Emily Dwyer. I'm the policy director at the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, or CNCA.
We are grateful to parliamentarians for taking this issue seriously, and we urge them to act swiftly to address the many reports of human rights violations in Canada's global supply chains.
Modern slavery exists, and some Canadian companies are profiting from it. Canadians from coast to coast to coast want Canada to take decisive action to eradicate forced labour and other human rights abuses from Canadian supply chains, but in its current form, Bill S-211 would not prevent exploitation and abuse. Bill S-211 would do more harm than good.
Our network of 40 organizations and unions from across the country was formed in 2005 to collectively call for mandatory measures to require companies to respect human rights and the environment in their global operations. We represent the voices of millions of Canadians, and our members have long-standing relationships with communities, women, indigenous peoples and workers around the world.
Our membership does not support Bill S-211, because the bill as currently drafted would allow Canadian companies to continue to profit from human suffering and environmental damage. The harm we're talking about is not trivial. It ranges from forced labour to land and water contamination, workers' rights violations, killings and gang rapes, many of these linked to Canadian mining and oil and gas operations abroad.
Canada needs the right legislation if we are serious about tackling corporate abuse. Simply put, a law that requires you to report but does not require you to stop the harm you're causing may be easy to pass with all-party support, but it is also meaningless.
What is needed is a law that goes beyond a basic reporting requirement.
To get widespread support of civil society and to catch up to global momentum, supply chain legislation should, first, focus on preventing and remedying harm, rather than reporting; second, help impacted people access remedies; and third, apply to all human rights.
At best, Bill S-211 is meaningless, as it will not improve the situation for those who are harmed. At worst, the bill is damaging because it creates the appearance of action to end modern slavery without actually having any such effect.
Bill S-211 does not require companies to stop using or to stop profiting from child or forced labour. It does not require companies to take any steps to identify whether slave labour is in their supply chains. It does not require company directors to certify that their supply chains are free of forced labour.
If companies do make use of child or forced labour, the bill doesn't offer help to the victims at all. This means that a company could comply with Bill S-211 by taking no steps or by taking patently inadequate steps, remaining wilfully blind and continuing business as usual.
The evidence from other countries confirms that reporting-only laws have not been effective in addressing corporate abuse. For example, a five-year review of the U.K.'s modern slavery reporting registry “revealed no significant improvements in companies' policies or practice” and also said that it “failed to be an effective driver of corporate action to end forced labour”.
Europe is moving away from reporting-only approaches towards mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence laws. Canada should do the same.
It is urgent that communities and workers harmed in Canadian supply chains be protected from abuse and have access to remedy in Canada. We hope the process currently under way will ultimately lead to such a result, but we want to be very clear: Our network's position is that if Bill S-211 as currently drafted were to go to a vote today, we would be advising MPs to vote no.
We also believe that this committee needs to hear directly from impacted people and workers, and we note their absence from the speakers list. Kalpona Akter, herself previously a child worker and today a world-renowned labour rights activist from Bangladesh, joins me today and can intervene during the question and answer period.
We hope the committee will expand the number of sessions it holds so that it can hear directly from the directly impacted people around the world.
Thank you for your time.
741 words
All Tags
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:19:20 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
If I may, with permission from the chair and with all due respect, what I understand is that this is a bill for supply chain people. You are the champions for the bill. You know what to do with that.
What I can say is how workers are living today. What they want is any kind of bill that is taken by a country like Canada, countries in Europe or the U.S.
The workers are earning $78 a month. I really want you to know what you are talking about with forced labour...in your eyes, what forced labour is.
I was in the factory. Before me, my mom went to the factory. She had to leave the factory because she had a two-month-old infant at home, so she had to send me and my brother, rather than work herself. The two of us were the breadwinners for the seven of us in the family. The whole reason for us to go to the factory was because my mom was not paid a living wage. I don't see that anywhere.
Child labour will not be eliminated. Forced labour will not be eliminated from any supply chain if the parents don't get a living wage, if the parents don't have freedom of association on their production floor or in their factories where they are working, and if other labour aspects that are supposed to be respected are not respected.
It is so difficult for a woman to live with the little money she is getting today, let alone if she has two children in the family. She is toiling every day of her life in these factories. She thinks there will be some changes in the sourcing country and that their legislation will make some difference in our lives. However, what I can see from the discussion that you are having is very minimal.
Yes, we are looking at the European Union due diligence law. The directive they just proposed includes a living wage. It includes freedom of association. It includes health and safety. It includes the elimination of forced labour. It includes human rights.
I think you are talking about one of the elements of it. My feeling is that Canada can do it way better.
To give an example, many of you may know Bangladesh for Rana Plaza. Rana Plaza was a factory that collapsed with 5,000 workers inside. That was nine years ago. A binding agreement has made a huge difference back home. Now, over 2.2 million workers are working in safe factories because we have the Accord for Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh. The beauty of this is that it is a binding agreement.
For every law, if you cannot bring these corporations to account under any mandatory act, there will be no difference made down the supply chain.
Thank you.
483 words
All Tags
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
