Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I am speaking today about Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff regarding goods from Xinjiang.

This bill is sponsored by Senator Housakos, and I am the critic. I volunteered because Senator Housakos and I both spoke in this chamber, at about the same time early in the session, about the issue of forced labour and the all-too-common human rights violations. A total of 25 million people are victims of forced labour around the world. We share this grave concern, but we have chosen different ways to respond.

Through Bill S-211, I have proposed a broad, step-by-step approach to combatting modern slavery by requiring companies doing business in Canada to report on the risks of forced labour and child labour in their supply chains. Bill S-211 does not target any particular region of the world, although we know that forced labour and child labour is particularly prevalent in Africa and Asia. That said, no country on the continent is completely free of it, and we have had disturbing cases of forced labour in Canada, notably in agriculture and hospitality, and even among undocumented personal support workers working in Quebec during the pandemic.

Senator Housakos chose a much narrower and more draconian approach. His bill would prohibit the importation of goods manufactured in whole or in part in the Xinjiang region of China.

I agree with my colleague that the human rights violations against Uighurs are extremely serious. These violations have been labelled as “genocide” by the Canadian House of Commons and the British House of Commons, as well as by the European Parliament, the U.S. Secretary of State and U.S. President Joe Biden. I agree with that assessment.

[English]

In fact, the treatment of the Muslim Uighur minority by the authoritarian Chinese regime should worry every citizen in the world who believes in human rights. As Joanna Chiu writes in her excellent book China Unbound: A New World Disorder:

If its treatment of Uyghurs is any indication, China is willing to criminalize religious practices . . . torture and harass camp inmates, sexually abuse detainees, and illegally harass Uyghurs around the world. But the international community has been slow to respond to the growing humanitarian crisis, raising the troubling question of what the CCP might get away with in the future.

In addition to assimilation and detention camps, there is ample evidence that many Uighurs are forced into labour. The situation is difficult to quantify, as reporters and experts on these issues are prevented from entering facilities in Xinjiang. We must therefore rely on other sources to get a sense of scale.

According to a report by Australian Strategic Policy Institute, more than 80,000 Uighurs were transferred out of the Xinjiang region between 2017 and 2019 to work in Chinese factories. Despite China’s claim that their work is voluntary, abundant evidence shows that their freedom of movement is very limited and that they are under constant extreme surveillance, with their families threatened and at risk of being detained.

[Translation]

Some major, well-known brands have been suspected of being connected to supply chains that use forced Uighur labour. The list of suspected products includes cotton, tomatoes, tomato products and polysilicon. These products have a high risk of being tainted by forced labour in the Xinjiang region. This region produces nearly half of all polysilicon, a material used to manufacture solar panels, and nearly 20% of the world’s cotton.

Unfortunately, as Canadian consumers, we all contribute to this exploitation. Cotton clothing labelled “made in China” is found in all of our stores, and this cotton is highly likely to have been harvested in Xinjiang, where more than a half a million Uighurs are reportedly being forced to work. Major brands like Uniqlo, Walmart, Zara and Sports Experts remain silent when asked to account for their actions.

CBC’s Marketplace uncovered some more alarming news about tomatoes and tomato products that are very likely to be found on our grocery store shelves. Consumers cannot make informed decisions about the tomato products they buy in grocery stores. Well-known brands like Nestlé, Del Monte and Unilever are buying tomatoes from Xinjiang and processing them in a third country, like Pakistan, the Philippines or India, before reselling them.

Other situations around the world are just as appalling, such as children working in open-pit mines or on cocoa or sugar cane plantations, but the fact is that these forms of exploitation are not systematically organized by states. Governments may be often passive or complicit with regard to these situations, but the exploitation of the Uighurs was clearly orchestrated by Chinese authorities.

That is why Senator Housakos introduced his initiative in a very short bill that boils down to one sentence:

 . . . the importation of goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China is prohibited.

This bill was born of a frustration I share, because our own border officers are not enforcing the existing legislation, which already prohibits goods made by forced labour from entering Canada from any country in the world.

This amendment to our Customs Tariff Act arises from the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade agreement, which has been in force for 22 months now. To date, Canada has seized one single, solitary, shipment of clothing from China suspected of being made by forced labour. By comparison, the United States has intercepted over 1,300 suspect shipments from China within that same time period.

According to the experts consulted by The Globe and Mail, Canada has not invested sufficient funding or made enough of an effort to enforce this law, nor has it put enough effort into gathering intelligence to make seizures.

Where Bill S-204 differs from the current law is that it does not propose seizing shipments that simply might contain goods produced using forced labour, but rather all shipments originating from one region, Xinjiang, assuming from the outset that these goods are likely to be the result of forced labour.

It is true that it is very difficult for border officers to distinguish between the two. There is no visible evidence that goods have been produced by forced labour. If the bill passes, it will also be important to ensure that companies, Chinese or otherwise, do not circumvent the law by routing their products through other intermediate countries.

What is interesting about Bill S-204 is that the importer has no way to prove that the seized shipment is not the product of forced labour.

However, on the face of it, such a ban seems contrary to World Trade Organisation rules, which prohibit discrimination and quantitative restrictions.

We could always justify the existence of Bill S-204 by invoking Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which allows for exceptions necessary to protect human life or health or public morals, for example, or relating to the products of prison labour.

Bill S-204 would completely ban all products from Xinjiang, so it could be difficult to invoke any exceptions. In this case, it would be up to Canada to prove to the WTO that the ban does not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination.

Only one country so far has acted in a way that reflects what Bill S-204 is proposing. In the United States, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act passed unanimously in the Senate, and the law will be in force at the U.S. border starting in June. The U.S. law includes a presumption that all goods manufactured in whole or in part in the Xinjiang region are inadmissible. The law also states that businesses located elsewhere in China could be blacklisted if they profit from the forced labour of Uighurs. However, unlike Bill S-204, U.S. importers can rebut this presumption by providing clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that their factories and those of their suppliers do not use forced labour. If Bill S-204 included similar relief, it would no doubt be more likely to be deemed compliant with WTO rules.

The U.S. bill generated heated debate between multinationals that rely on China for their supplies, legislators who want the United States to take a firmer stance on defending human rights, and those who are primarily concerned about supply chain disruptions and inflation. Fortunately, defenders of justice and human dignity won the day, for once, against defenders of commercial competitiveness and low prices at all costs.

Human Rights Watch supports the U.S. legislation and considers it to be a powerful new tool for combatting forced labour. The NGO recommends that there be serious consequences for companies that cannot provide transparent information about their supply chains and forced labour in China.

Other countries are looking for measures they can implement at their borders to fight modern slavery.

In Australia, a Senate bill introduced in 2020 sought to prohibit the importation of all goods produced in Xinjiang, similar to Bill S-204. There was no consensus for this Australian bill because it targeted only one region in the world. A new version presently being studied would prohibit the entry into Australia of any goods produced with forced labour, no matter where they come from.

In late April, the British government adopted an amendment to eradicate forced labour from National Health Service supply chains.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that Bill S-204 should be referred to a committee that can study and amend it, if required, to prevent it from clashing with our international trade commitments.

However, I would add that, at the same time, we should also reflect on the weight we want to give social and environmental considerations in our trade agreements. For decades — and even today — the economic imperatives of growth, competitiveness and low prices have often outweighed issues of human dignity and sustainable development. Ecological and ethical considerations, which of course include the revolting human rights violations in China, should never be partisan or ideological issues. We must therefore find effective ways to fight for progress. We must not remain passive. Thank you.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne moved third reading of 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, as amended.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak at third reading of Bill S-211, which seeks to fight against forced labour and child labour in supply chains.

I am relieved that this bill has finally reached an important stage in the Senate, given that its progress has been interrupted four times since 2018, first in the House of Commons and then in the Senate, due to elections and prorogations. In short, it followed the usual difficult path of any private member’s bill.

We must not forget that careful consideration of this issue started out in a House of Commons committee, which four years ago called for the elimination of child labour in the supply chains of Canadian-based companies.

[English]

I first want to thank Senator Salma Ataullahjan, who was not only the critic of the bill but the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights that devoted five meetings to the diligent study of this bill.

I was impressed by the diversity of opinions and the witnesses called. The committee heard supporters of the bill but also critical and articulate voices who wanted Canada to go further in the defence of human beings subjected to forced labour, including exploited children.

Here are some of the voices we heard during the committee study of Bill S-211.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce supports the objectives of this bill but feels it is too harsh in some respects and would like it to apply to fewer businesses.

Taking the opposing view, the committee also heard from Surya Deva, a United Nations expert who believes the bill should go further — in particular, to cover all human rights, to impose an obligation of due diligence on businesses and to give victims direct access to Canadian courts to obtain compensation from companies.

From a pragmatic perspective, lawyer and expert Stephen Pike said that he believes Bill S-211:

. . . is a reasonable, appropriate and evolutionary first step forward, using supply chain transparency reporting to . . . catalyze actions to address these human rights abuses.

I also note that World Vision Canada, an NGO promoting children’s rights with special expertise in child labour, also stated that supply chain legislation could begin paving our constructive path toward tackling the issue of child labour.

There was a clash of ideas, and the committee heard both the perspective of business and that of more committed activists. The comments received suggest that Bill S-211 embodies a certain compromise between the expectations of one and the other. By using the tool of transparency, the law aims to encourage companies to make the necessary efforts to prevent and reduce the risk of forced labour and child labour in their supply chains.

Members of the Human Rights Committee are well aware of the limitations of Bill S-211, but they supported this bill because it goes in the right direction. This is truly a first step, designed to raise awareness for all those who participate in the race to have goods manufactured at the lowest possible price all over the world. For companies that do not report or that provide false or misleading information, there will be penalties.

[Translation]

I thank Senator Gerba for introducing an amendment that clarifies and strengthens one of the most difficult issues related to implementing this transparency bill. What happens after the company removes the children from the production chains?

Several senators rightly repeated that a child who works can support an entire family. There is a risk that Bill S-211 will indirectly impoverish families, or that it will push children into lower-paying or more dangerous jobs in the informal economy. The amendment that was adopted adds a requirement for a company to report on the following:

For example, this might take the form of compensation for the affected family, including to allow a child to attend school.

Transparency legislation such as Bill S-211 requires companies to report on what it is doing or not doing to eliminate forced labour and compensate the victims. These reports are made public and become tools for human rights advocacy groups and consumers, so they can report offenders or simply switch suppliers.

The good news is that the movement has already begun. The committee was pleased to hear from Jennie Coleman, president of Equifruit, which trades in fair trade bananas. She explained that paying just a few pennies more per pound of bananas can have a direct impact on the working conditions of the children and adults who harvest them. I hope that I can count on the support of my colleagues in the Senate today in order to send this bill to the other place so it may continue through the legislative process and, who knows, maybe even get the government’s attention.

The Minister of Labour, Seamus O’Reagan, has just reiterated that legislation against forced labour is a priority for his government. He promised to review private members’ bills on this issue, including mine, before deciding whether to amend one of them or introduce his own bill. Whichever avenue is chosen, the most important thing for me is that there is a law and that it is passed as soon as possible. Private members’ bills are useful not only if they are passed as they stand, but also because of the pressure they put on the government to legislate without delay.

In my case, it was the first time I had ever sponsored a Senate bill. I learned a lot from Bill S-211. Over the two years that I have been on this journey, I have received valuable support from concerned citizens, advocacy groups, independent and Conservative senators, MPs of all parties as well as the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. This demonstrates the non-partisan consensus that exists regarding the need to combat these appalling human rights violations. Thank you to everyone.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne moved second reading of 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.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today at second reading of Bill S-211, the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act. This is the third time I have introduced this bill. Let’s hope the third time is the charm. Although the essence of the bill is the same, much has changed in recent months, making it more relevant than ever for Canada to enact legislation to end modern slavery.

There are four things I want to discuss. First is the pandemic and, more specifically, the pressure it put on public and private supply chains. The pandemic opened our eyes to some personal, social and economic realities. It highlighted the limits of our system and its inequities, and it reminded us just how connected we are to the rest of the world, which we rely on for so many goods and services we consume every day, from our phones and our clothing to a large number of our food products.

Forced labour and child labour are among the problems that have been exacerbated by the pandemic. For example, we know that the Government of Canada awarded $220 million in contracts for disposable gloves to a subsidiary of the Malaysian company Supermax. Former Supermax workers said that they did back-breaking work for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and were not even permitted to take washroom breaks when needed. They were also never able to pay off their debts.

Despite the fact that these allegations of forced labour came to light as early as January 2021, Canada continued to receive deliveries until October. Canada waited for our American neighbours to ban the entry of Supermax products into the U.S. before taking action.

Let’s not forget that the United States can ban merchandise if “the information available reasonably but not conclusively indicates” production by forced labour, while Canada can intervene only if a much higher standard is met. That standard requires “legally sufficient and defensible evidence” of production by forced labour. Given that it is extremely difficult to document in detail forced labour practices abroad, Canada’s decision in this regard means that in practice we very rarely intervene. That is unfortunate.

According to UNICEF, the number of children involved in child labour worldwide had been shrinking for years, but it has now started to rise again. In 2020, 160 million children were involved in child labour, an increase of more than 8 million in four years. That could climb by an additional 9 million by the end of 2022. It is estimated that there were 25 million victims of forced labour in 2016 compared to 21 million in 2012.

[English]

Although the pandemic may have aggravated the problem in an exceptional way, we should recognize that the issue of forced labour has always existed. It is a complex phenomenon fuelled by poverty, discrimination and inequality. There are many ways to make a person fall into the trap of forced labour: endless debt repayment, confiscation of identity documents, threats to report to immigration authorities, intimidation, violence and so on. Several cases are sadly well known: children exploited in certain mines in Africa; fishermen and migrants imprisoned on fishing boats in Asia; foreign workers in Dubai. Consumers in rich countries also participate in this system — most often unintentionally — by always seeking the cheapest products possible. But low prices can come at a human cost that is too high.

These cases are not exceptional. Forced labour and child labour have long permeated our everyday consumption. Generally, it is not the Canadian companies that are directly involved, but rather their subcontractors as well as their suppliers of raw materials and agricultural products. Therein lies the main risk: supply chains.

It is exceedingly difficult for consumers to know which products have been produced by children or by adults working under duress. Not all fair trade certifications are created equal and industry self-regulation has obvious limitations. It was estimated that $34 billion worth of goods imported into Canada could have been manufactured, in whole or in part, through forced labour or child labour. One thousand two hundred companies imported at least one of these high-risk goods into Canada.

In recent months and years, non-governmental organizations and media reports have shone the spotlight on this uncomfortable reality. A recent World Vision survey revealed that nearly $4 billion worth of agricultural products imported into Canada could be the product of forced labour or child labour, particularly from Mexico. That’s about 10% of all Canadian food imports and the equivalent of $264 per Canadian household. This is also a 63% increase in imports of risky products in a decade. Among the worst foods: coffee, fish, cane sugar, tomatoes and cocoa. Common products for many of us.

Just a few weeks ago, we learned that Canadian authorities had, for the first time, seized a shipment of clothes from China. Even more recently, there have been reports of child labour in Congo’s cobalt mines where some of the materials needed to make electric cars are sourced, which are most often sold in wealthy countries in Europe and North America.

Even if most cases of forced labour are identified abroad, we should not assume that this reality does not exist here. The Global Slavery Index estimates that 17,000 people are believed to be living in conditions of modern slavery in Canada. Our temporary agricultural workers are particularly at risk. Over the years, there have also been other cases of illegal practices in Canada. For example, in 2019, 43 workers of Mexican origin were released by Ontario police. These men had been trafficked to Canada to work as maintenance workers in hotels.

The practices of forced labour and child labour are violations unworthy of our humanity and the principles that we put forward. We cannot fight them only with virtuous speeches. We must act.

[Translation]

With that in mind, I would like to take a closer look at the plight of the Uighur Muslim minority in China’s Xinjiang region. The plight of the Uighurs is probably the most obvious example these days of the methods used by an autocratic regime to subdue an entire people.

For years now, there have been more and more allegations of forced labour in re-education camps and in tomato and cotton fields. Several credible sources have reported this, which is why the House of Commons even described the situation as “genocide.”

A recent CBC investigation revealed that many of the processed tomato products we consume in Canada originate from the Xinjiang region and can be found on our grocery store shelves under labels such as Del Monte, Nestlé, Unilever and La Doria.

Should we ban all products from Xinjiang province, as my colleague Senator Housakos is proposing? We’ll have that debate, but in the meantime, I would like to emphasize that our two bills are not in conflict. My bill, Bill S-211, amends the Customs Tariff to prohibit the importation of goods manufactured or produced by either forced labour or child labour. Senator Housakos, in turn, is proposing to systematically ban all imports from Xinjiang.

The good news is that there is no time like the present to finally start taking action. A few months ago, Canada’s Minister of International Trade signed a G7 joint statement committing herself and her counterparts to take action on modern slavery.

From the beginning, I have been grateful to have the support of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery, which is made up of members from the House and the Senate of all political stripes. More recently, during the last election campaign, both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party committed to fighting forced labour.

On page 67 of their platform, the Liberals promised to do the following, and I quote:

Introduce legislation to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and ensure Canadian businesses that operate abroad are not contributing to human rights abuses.

In their platform, the Conservatives committed to dramatically revise supply chain legislation to meaningfully enforce Canada’s commitment not to import products made with slave labour.

In that respect, the political parties are in tune with public opinion. If a 2015 World Vision survey is to be believed, a staggering 87% of Canadians want the government to require companies to assess the risk of child labour in their supply chains.

According to a 2013 survey, 89% of Canadians are actually ready to pay more — up to 23% more, on average — for products free of child labour.

Lastly, according to the Schulich School of Business, even in the business world, three quarters of respondents believe that a supply chain transparency law could help drive change and benefit their company.

Canada has relied on self-regulation and corporations’ social responsibility for too long. Companies don’t always have the means or the economic incentive to take significant action, so it is high time our actions mirrored our words.

What does Bill S-211 propose? As was the case with previous versions, this is first and foremost a tool for transparency. Bill S-211 would require federal institutions and large companies that do business in Canada to produce an annual report detailing the measures taken to prevent or mitigate the risk of forced labour or child labour in their supply chains. The important thing is that these reports will have to be made public. The legislation sets out fines of up to $250,000 for offenders, for those who make false or misleading statements.

I want to state from the outset that the obligation is to issue a report, not to end forced labour in a single stroke. The bill is a step in the right direction, but it does not claim to eradicate human rights violations committed during the production of the goods we consume. Several systemic causes maintain modern slavery. Still, this is a start, and as our American friends say, sunlight can be the best disinfectant.

We have had the chance over the past few months to make a few significant improvements to the bill. I will mention four key ones today.

We broadened the scope of the bill to include federal institutions, namely the departments and more than one hundred public institutions that purchase or distribute goods in Canada or elsewhere.

There are two main reasons for this important change. First, as we saw with orders of medical supplies during the pandemic, the federal government also runs the risk of importing goods made with forced labour. Second, as a major economic actor, the federal government has a certain duty to be consistent and to set an example. It seems that the least the government can do is apply to its own machinery the standards it wants to apply to the private sector.

With respect to private businesses, the new version of the bill has not changed the compliance criteria, which are identical to those of the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act. The law would therefore apply primarily to businesses that have at least $20 million in assets, that have generated at least $40 million in revenue, or that have at least 250 employees. The bill is aimed primarily at large businesses. It is a pragmatic choice, at least initially.

[English]

As a third improvement, we have sought to harmonize contents of the reports with comparable international legislation, and we have also aligned the certification standard with the one applicable to financial statements.

So we changed the content of the report to add explicit references to supply chains, an explicit reference to the due diligence processes put in place by companies and an assessment of the effectiveness of the company’s efforts.

Bill S-211 also changes the standards for improving and certifying the report under the new section 11. Reports on the risk of forced labour must be approved by the company’s governing body; in the case of business corporations, this is the case of the board of directors. We have harmonized this rule with those provided for in the Canada Business Corporations Act for the approval of the company’s financial statements.

These changes not only allow for a single standard for corporate reporting but it is in line with the contemporary trend to require an equivalent degree of corporate approval for financial and non-financial disclosures.

Finally, Bill S-211 proposes an amended definition of child labour which, in my opinion, better corresponds to the ideals and aspirations of Canada, while also being more realistic and representative of the international reality. The new definition incorporates the definition of child labour of the International Labour Organization, that is to say, labour or services that are provided or offered to be provided by children under circumstances that are:

. . . mentally, physically, socially or morally dangerous . . . or

interferes with their schooling by: depriving them of the opportunity to attend school; obliging them to leave school prematurely; or requiring them to attempt to combine school attendance with excessively long and heavy work.

Compared to the predecessor bill, these definitions avoid the application of Canada’s standards abroad. It also defines child labour more broadly than simply referring to the worst form.

[Translation]

Here are a few international examples, if I have time to talk about them. Canada is lagging behind, so it is even more important that we take action to end modern slavery.

Six years ago, the United Kingdom passed the Modern Slavery Act, transparency legislation that targets companies with at least $60 million Canadian in business revenue. An independent review recommended that the act be amended to add sanctions and that the companies’ reports be included in the annual reports provided to shareholders. These two recommendations are included in our Bill S-211.

In 2017, France passed its corporate duty of vigilance law. This strict legislation requires companies to prevent serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. However, the French law applies only to major corporations with more than 5,000 employees in France or 10,000 employees worldwide.

Australia followed the example of the United Kingdom and made improvements to its legislation, for example, by making it applicable to public organizations and by creating a public centralized registry.

In 2019, the Netherlands passed a very worthwhile bill. It is very innovative in that it applies not only to companies that have facilities in the Netherlands but also to those that only do business online.

Germany, the last country, passed its own due diligence legislation with respect to supply chains six months ago.

How does Bill S-211 compare to these international examples?

Subject to your comments and observations, esteemed colleagues, I believe that the bill we are debating is reasonable, pragmatic and measured. It is modelled mainly after the legislation of Britain and Australia — which have regimes similar to the Canadian system — but also proposes some improvements.

As is the case with any type of legislation, some would like us to go further, in particular by following certain European examples, while others would like us to include more businesses by lowering the threshold for application of the legislation. Still others, in contrast, would like to limit the scope of the bill.

In the end, I sought to find a compromise that would lead to a certain consensus by reminding myself that politics is the art of the possible. My hope is that this legislation will be a first step in the right direction for Canada, and that we will be able to improve it over the years and as the global situation evolves.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne introduced 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.

(Bill read first time.)