SoVote

Mr. Matt Friedman (Chief Executive Officer, Mekong Club)

03:52:47 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you very much for this opportunity. My name is Matt Friedman. I have been working on the issue of addressing modern slavery for over 35 years in over 40 countries. I now run an organization that works with the private sector in a positive, supportive and non-naming and shaming way. I can't emphasize the urgency of the fact that we really need to do more to address the issue of modern slavery. According to the slavery index and ILO, the new number is 50 million people, up from 40 million people, as a result of COVID and many other things that are going on around the world. That translates to about 25,200 people entering per day. With a $150-billion industry and with all of the collective work of all the organizations only resulting in 100,000 people being rescued each year, which is about 0.2%, we really have to do much more in order to address this issue. As we have seen from the statistics, 75% of what we're dealing with is forced labour. Of that, 60% is associated with supply chains, which basically brings the private sector into this fight. As a result of that, it's very appropriate that we are moving in the direction of talking about legislation that basically brings the private sector into addressing modern slavery. Transparency legislation has been around since 2012. The first legislation was the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act. It basically just said that if you're a big company, you have to put on your website what you're doing to address modern slavery. That's all it said. The U.K.'s Modern Slavery Act came and added more bells and whistles, which basically said you have to have an annual report that you submit that addresses a number of things. As a result of that, you will have to have that signed by the board of directors. With each incarnation of this transparency legislation, you see more things being added. This is important because it helps to sensitize the private sector to what they need to know, not only in Canada but in their supply chains around the world. It also allows for consumers to get a general sense of what companies are doing or not doing. This is a very relevant and important part of what needs to be done in order to offer the transparency that this legislation is proposing. Why is this bill needed? It will help to educate and inform the companies as well as the government. What's interesting about this legislation is that it includes procurement for government agencies as well, which is a twist that we haven't really seen in a lot of the other legislation. This will increase the basic understanding. I know this is needed and essential, because I recently did a presentation tour across Canada for three weeks. I was going to Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa. I was hearing from a lot of companies that they didn't really know much about this issue. They recognized the importance, but they didn't really have the basic information. This bill will allow for that to happen. It will allow companies to submit their basic submissions. If they don't, fines and penalties will be in place. A lot of the other transparency legislation implies that this happens, but they don't actually have that in place. This is really encouraging because it will ensure that companies take this seriously. It will encourage other countries to add the public sector element to this because with each incarnation of transparency legislation, the other countries go back and try to revise and add things so it's consistent with the global norm. This will create peer pressure because the companies that are submitting will be able to look at the public inventory that's online to compare themselves to other organizations. That's an amazing increase. Lastly, the kind of emphasis on forced labour and the child labour clause that focuses on customs and border protection is essential. I think a lot more clarity is needed in order to identify exactly what that means, but in reality that's a plus. My advice is that if this legislation gets enacted, it should actually get operationalized. We have seen in other countries that they have it on paper and things are done, but a lot of organizations don't necessarily comply with what is required of them. I think it's important to get feedback from the private sector. The private sector has a lot to offer when it comes to helping to understand the complexity and the range of supply chains around the world. The people who are actually overseeing this and who will be managing the process really need some training to understand what's needed. I say this because I have met with customs and border protection organizations that have similar types of oversight. Many of them just don't have the kind of experience that's needed to really address this. I think it's important that we not reinvent the wheel. A lot of these companies really don't know where to start. They are willing to be in compliance. We have tools available. We have organizations that know how to address this issue and we have, basically, consultation series and procedures. Add something in there that ensures there are resources to ensure that the private sector can get up to speed. We saw this with the U.K.'s Modern Slavery Act. Initially, there was some grumbling from the private sector, but once it crossed over the line, they asked, “What do we need to do?” When it comes to that, what you need to do, there are organizations such as mine and others that are able to help, and, within a fairly short period of time, a lot of these organizations could be brought up to speed. With that, I'm done. Thank you very much.

1011 words

All Tags

The Chair

03:58:19 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you very much, Mr. Friedman. We go to Mr. Brown. You have the floor for five minutes.

18 words

Mr. Stephen Brown (Chief Executive Officer, National Council of Canadian Muslims)

03:58:27 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for providing us the opportunity to offer you our thoughts on the study of this committee on Bill S-211. My name is Stephen Brown. I'm the CEO of the National Council of Canadian Muslims. I'm joined today by Fatema Abdalla, the advocacy officer for the council. There are two key submissions I want to provide to this committee. First and most important is the issue of urgency. We must move swiftly, as there should not be another day in which Canada tolerates the products of forced labour on our grocery shelves. Second and critical is amending the language of Bill S-211 to clearly indicate that all products arising from East Turkestan, also known as Xinjiang, should not be allowed to come into Canada, subject to a reverse onus provision where companies operating in the area need to demonstrate that those products do not arise as a product of forced labour. Such an amendment is not novel and would bring us into alignment with the current legislative schema of countries like the United States. We want to be clear. This is a strong bill bolstering transparency obligations pertaining to forced labour risks. We are here to ask you to pass this bill urgently, but with one key amendment. For the three key reasons that I will lay out below, we submit that there are reasons that inexorably compel this House to amend the legislation to ensure that Canada does not tolerate forced labour products from East Turkestan specifically. That is because I'm here on behalf of those who, until recently, were forgotten. In 2006, our organization called for the Government of Canada to secure the release of Huseyin Celil, a Canadian Uighur activist who has been detained in China and rendered to the concentration camps. We still do not have definitive evidence as to whether he is alive or not. His wife, Kamila, continues to fight and pray for his return. Let’s start with reason number one. This House passed a motion that, while non-binding, labelled what is happening in China right now as a genocide. There is simply no reason to have any equivocation as to whether the CBSA has to use discretion in ascertaining whether products arising from East Turkestan violate Bill S-211. Rather, based purely on this ground, it offends common sense and, more importantly, our collective humanity to allow products to be coming to Canada from East Turkestan specifically. Therefore, we have a duty to ensure that the ambit of the legislation captures what is happening in East Turkestan clearly as a prima facie case of forced labour. Second, this brings us to the issue of enforcement. Presently, despite memorandum D9-1-6, the CBSA has been unable to deal with forced labour products arising from East Turkestan. To quote CBSA director, John Ossowski: Unlike most other inadmissible products, there is no visual clue for a [customs officer] to understand the labour standards by which a particular import was produced. Establishing that goods were produced by forced labour and compiling evidence requires a significant amount of research and analysis in coordination with other government department partners. The CBSA should not have this level of difficulty in turning back shipments from East Turkestan, and the current context of Bill S-211 will not fix the issue. Third, amending Bill S-211 would allow Canada to come into line with other jurisdictions when it comes to removing forced labour from supply chains. The United States is a good example in this case, since it has already taken a similar measure by passing the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, ensuring that all goods, wares, articles and merchandise mined, produced or manufactured wholly or in part in the Uighur region are denied entry to U.S. ports. We know that you and your colleagues may wonder whether this critical amendment is out of scope or whether it opens a can of worms by raising the question of other specific countries that should be listed. We think both of these concerns are overstated, for reasons I'm happy to expand upon. We are urging this committee—we're begging you as parliamentarians—to ensure that we take this opportunity of legislation that has strong bipartisan support to give it enough teeth to make sure that Uighur human hair doesn't end up in Canadian pillows. That’s all we're asking today. Also, I note in closing that we expand significantly on the submissions before you today in our brief, which will be submitted next week. Thank you very much.

788 words

All Tags

The Chair

04:03:14 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. We now go to our last witness for this first panel, and that is Mr. Kevin Thomas. Mr. Thomas, you have five minutes for your opening remarks.

33 words

Mr. Kevin Thomas (Chief Executive Officer, Shareholder Association for Research and Education)

04:03:28 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for inviting me to present today. I am the CEO of the Shareholder Association for Research and Education, which is also known as SHARE. We regularly coordinate investor advocacy on environmental, social and governance issues alongside most of the major pension and asset management institutions in our country and also with international coalitions of investors with trillions of dollars in assets under management. We represent a group of direct institutional investor clients of SHARE, on whose behalf we engage in regular dialogue with boards and management at over 120 Canadian and international companies in which—

103 words

All Tags

The Chair

04:04:03 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I'm so sorry, Mr. Thomas. Would you just pause for a second? I'm being advised that your mike is not connected.

23 words

The Chair

04:05:01 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Can you try unplugging and plugging it in again?

9 words

Mr. Kevin Thomas

04:05:04 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I just tried that. Is it any better?

8 words

The Chair

04:05:14 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Could you also select, on the left-hand side, the microphone on your screen?

14 words

Mr. Kevin Thomas

04:05:24 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Yes, that is selected.

4 words

The Chair

04:05:46 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

It appears that we have a technical problem. The interpreters can't hear you.

14 words

The Chair

04:05:57 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I will ask that we go straight into questions. In the interim, Mr. Thomas, you will have someone calling you to ensure that you can connect with us and respond to some of the questions. Thank you. Now we're going to open it up to questions. For the first round, every member is being provided four minutes for their questions. We will first go to Mr. Genuis.

68 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

04:06:29 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I signalled at the beginning, I want to use the first minute of my time to provide a notice of motion regarding an urgent and deeply concerning situation related to Iran. This notice of motion is as follows: That given recent reports of threats to lives of individuals in Canada from the Iranian regime, the ongoing freedom movement in Iran and the killing of dozens of Canadians by the regime including the shooting down of flight PS 752, and pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the threat to Canadians from the Iranian regime and how the Government of Canada should respond; that the committee invite the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety, the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to testify as part of this study; and, that the committee seeks to hear from these officials prior to Friday, December 16, 2022. That is the notice of motion, Mr. Chair. I think, given what all members would understand to be the urgency and sensitivity of the situation, and that the calendar seems to be more fluid than we thought it was anyway, this motion would be worth discussing as soon as possible. We would propose that it be considered for discussion on Wednesday. I'll now turn back to the witnesses. Thank you so much for being here. I want to start by asking our friends from the NCCM whether there are different models proposed for what some would call a regionalized approach to responding to forced and child labour—recognizing that there are specific situations, especially in the case of East Turkestan, where forced labour is not something that happens in the shadows. It's actually being organized and coordinated centrally by the state as part of a genocide, which is very different from some of the other kinds of forced labour we see in other parts of the world. You mentioned the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States and other cases of targeted legislative instruments. I very much agree with you that Parliament needs to act on this. We have Bill S-204 from Senator Housakos, which would ban goods coming from East Turkestan. We could do what the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act does and provide a reverse onus, where no goods come in unless there's proof that no forced or child labour was involved. Could you speak to why you think it's important to have a regionalized approach as part of our response to forced and child labour? Why is it not good enough having the same piece of legislation apply to the whole world? Why do we need to specifically, either in legislation or regulation, name regions and respond to the particularities of those situations?

482 words

All Tags

Mr. Stephen Brown

04:09:19 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you very much, Mr. Genuis. I'd also like to thank everybody here for their work on getting this bill to where it is, and the senators who sponsored the bill. On your question specifically, yes, I agree. The reason why we believe it's so important to mention East Turkestan, in this specific case.... We think there are three key reasons that compel, specifically. First, we have to remember that the House passed, while non-binding, a motion that labels what's happening right now in East Turkestan a genocide. There's no reason to equivocate about what's happening over there. Everybody knows exactly what's happening. The second brings us to the issue of enforcement. Given the fact that there's no legislative framework that relieves.... The CBSA has no visible cues to determine what is coming out of East Turkestan. It's very difficult to ascertain what is coming in. How do you source those goods? Having legislation that relieves them of the very onerous process of trying to determine where those products come from or were manufactured, and having a reverse onus provision that places responsibility on companies operating in the region, allows the CBSA to do their job. The last thing is coming in line with our other partners. The United States, the U.K. and Australia have all passed legislation recently. I think there are many examples of how to do this. There are many reasons why we should do this. The fact that there's a genocide happening over there is clear. We need to give law enforcement the tools to do their job. Thank you.

275 words

All Tags

Mr. Garnett Genuis

04:11:14 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

That was four minutes, Mr. Chair.

6 words

The Chair

04:11:15 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Yes, that's correct. We'll now go to Mr. Zuberi. You have four minutes, Mr. Zuberi.

17 words

Mr. Sameer Zuberi

04:11:24 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to start with Mr. Friedman. Could you please map out this piece of legislation—Bill S-211—for us, how it's situated within the framework of similar legislation in other jurisdictions—in particular, you talked about the evolution of transparency legislation—and how it lands within that evolution over the years?

63 words

All Tags

Mr. Matt Friedman

04:11:57 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Basically, what you have with this legislation is many of the same components that you would find in Australia, the U.K., and the California act. As I mentioned, there is a progression over time. California was simple; the U.K. and Australia were a little bit more. What you have added that's different is the procurement emphasis of the public sector, which is extremely relevant and important. There is more of a benchmarking of the fact that if a company does not comply, there will be fines and penalties associated with this. As I indicated, the other acts imply that some type of punishment will occur if compliance doesn't take place, but it's really not spelled out and we really haven't seen that applied in the other transparency legislation component. As a result of that, there are a lot of companies that simply don't submit anything at all. What makes this different is that you have criteria that are a little bit different in terms of the revenue, the assets, and the number of employees related to companies, and so on. This emphasis on ensuring that companies submit and go into a public registry is what puts this further along in the transformation of transparency legislation. What will happen over time, as I said, is that other countries will catch up to where you guys are, so you're setting the bar up higher than what we've seen in other legislative presentations.

249 words

All Tags

Mr. Sameer Zuberi

04:13:27 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Very quickly, Mr. Friedman, how important is it to get the buy-in from the corporate sector within Canada for legislation like this? How important is due diligence as well?

30 words

All Tags

Mr. Matt Friedman

04:13:41 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Many of the companies are already doing this for other transparency legislation. If you have products in the U.K., you're already submitting. I think corporate sector inputs are essential in helping to clarify the direction of this, but the writing is on the wall. This needs to happen. It's going to happen in many other countries as well, so let's go ahead and get this legislation across the line. I really don't think it's going to be a burden or a problem. What it does is sensitize the corporate sector to what they need to do. It educates them, informs them, and the peer pressure will get them to actually be involved.

118 words

All Tags

SoVote

House Committee