Bill C-262

Corporate Responsibility to Protect Human Rights Act

An Act respecting the corporate responsibility to prevent, address and remedy adverse impacts on human rights occurring in relation to business activities conducted abroad

This enactment, among other things, requires businesses to establish processes to prevent, address and remedy adverse impacts on human rights that occur in relation to their business activities conducted abroad.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

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.

Human Rights

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on behalf of many Canadians who support Bill C-262. They want to see Canadian companies represent our country well abroad, with a meaningful concern for human rights, and not just on a voluntary basis but on a basis where they are required to do so by government and where there are meaningful consequences for them if they do not ensure that they are adopting best practices in respect of human rights and reporting out on that regularly.

Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

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.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

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.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

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.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

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—

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

Minister, I would like to go to one of the other things that NGOs and other people working in the human rights sphere in Canada and around the world have been asking for.

In terms of Canadian companies working abroad, there's some due diligence legislation that would ask these companies to carry out due diligence exercises in order to ensure their operations, or operations their subsidiaries in other countries carry out, are not violating human rights. We could be sure Canadian companies abroad are working the same way they would in Canada and not damaging Canada's reputation abroad. Peter Julian has Bill C-262, which lays this out in very clear terms. It's a very simple bill.

Can you comment on whether you have considered this?

International Trade

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is impossible for me to answer in 10 seconds. I would simply encourage my colleague to read Bill C-262 and Bill C-263, which contain all kinds of provisions that respond to that. I think everything is in there.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I really enjoy working with him on this issue.

We will always applaud any step in the right direction, but we also have a duty to point out that we think the bill is too timid. That is also part of democracy, debate in the House and political debate on this matter.

However, I disagree with my colleague about the nature of the differences between the two bills. I do not have the time to repeat everything I said, but I did go over the differences, which are mainly the size of the businesses and the sectors they work in, the revenue thresholds and the requirements imposed.

I believe that there are many differences between the bills, and they are not purely symbolic. Therefore, I would again urge the government to place Bill C-262 in the order of precedence. We are very enthusiastic about this idea.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, Nicolas de Condorcet used to say that the truth belongs to those who seek it, not to those who claim to own it.

With that in mind, I welcome this motion, and I voted in favour of it when my Conservative colleague moved it in committee. For me, it is a step in the right direction, the beginning of something, a project. I am really glad the Conservatives have moved this motion. The last time I moved a motion to bring in a real due diligence policy seeking to pass it by unanimous consent, I heard a lot of howling from the opposition on my right. I use the word “right” in every sense of the word. I am glad the Conservatives finally woke up a bit, although it took a while.

I also moved a motion on mining companies. The Standing Committee on International Trade has completed its study on mining, but we have not yet adopted the report. We have not yet heard from the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development. When I moved my motion on the subject of mining, the Conservatives also opposed it, so I am pleased that they have come to their senses. It is better late than never, as they say.

I also want to thank the previous speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development. Recently, I was fortunate enough to go to Paris with him for the OECD summit, which focused on this particular issue. I am glad to see that the OECD and most countries are becoming aware of the problem. Unfortunately, this meeting turned into a bit of an exercise in one-upmanship. Everyone said they were taking this issue seriously and working hard in their communities to advance this cause. However, there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip, as the expression goes.

This is a topic that resonates with me because I also tabled a petition in the House last spring, I believe, or early last summer, to bring in a meaningful due diligence policy. I have also co-sponsored bills. Bloc members never judge a bill by its cover. When a bill is good, we support it; when it is bad, we do not support it.

I have co-sponsored two NDP bills. The first is Bill C-262, which has yet to move past first reading. If we are serious about this issue, we need to get on it, we need to make this a priority. The second is Bill C-263, which seeks to establish an office of the commissioner in this matter because an office like that could act as an authority.

Let us take a step back in history. Once upon a time, there was colonization. We call many countries “developing” nations nowadays. They are southern nations, based on the old north-south divide. There used to be something called colonization. Colonial empires, or metropolises as they were called, wanted to get their hands on resources, so they went and took over other lands. They did not all go about it the same way. Some felt that the people on those lands, whom they considered inferior, needed to be civilized. Others took things even further: those people had to be exterminated, unfortunately.

For others still, colonization meant stripping these people of all power and reducing them to insignificance for as long as they did business with them. This was often the British colonization model. The people no longer had any political power, but the colonial powers would pretend that they did. They let them elect leaders with little power, local leaders from their own tribes. This gave them the illusion that they still had power over their lives, which was a complete lie. It was called indirect rule. Then decolonization happened, as we know.

Next came globalization. Starting in the 1980s, we were told that we needed to free up the multinationals and free up capital to ensure that it could be moved from one place to another, without borders, so that profits could be made, because all those profits would contribute to the common good. That was a very bad interpretation of the words of Adam Smith, who is credited with introducing the “invisible hand” theory. In reality, Adam Smith never came up with an invisible hand theory. The invisible hand is metaphor that he used three times to talk about different things. If we look at Adam Smith's work, we see that what he actually said is quite the opposite of what people took from his words in the 1980s and 1990s.

When the Berlin Wall fell, the Iron Curtain also fell. It imploded, collapsed. That led to the rule of unadulterated neo-liberalism. All of the supranational bodies were saying that the time for nations and sovereignties was over, that it was the end for the social safety net. The time for measures and policies was over. Now was the time for capital to be deployed, for it to move from one jurisdiction to another by any means and at any time. It needed to be freed up as much as possible so that anything could be done with it.

Obviously, today, that is no longer the case. We might say that globalization is in crisis, that we are returning to a multipolar world. It appears that there are several environmental and social consequences to these utopias. Among them, there is this idea of having a great global supply chain where every country can do its part. This also has consequences.

Quebec has fared well under free trade. It has been a beneficial experience. We certainly need to continue to diversify our trade partners, but not at all costs. We have seen the human consequences in terms of human rights, obviously, but also the use of forced labour. That is the point of today's motion on the importation of goods linked to the use of forced labour.

If we are going to address the problem, then we need to be serious. With what is referred to as dumping, a product can go through another country that is used as a flag of convenience. Then the product arrives here and we think it was made in places where forced labour is controlled and regulated, when in fact that is often not the case.

The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, the CNCA, has made a number of demands. I am going to read them, because I think they are quite comprehensive. According to the CNCA, there are five essential elements in effective due diligence legislation which many Canadian and Quebec civil society groups agree on, and they are the following: require companies to prevent all human rights violations throughout their global operations and supply chains; require companies to develop and implement human rights due diligence procedures, and report on them, as well as require them to consult rights holders; require meaningful consequences for companies that fail to take these obligations seriously and guarantee impacted communities access to effective remedy in Canadians civil courts; be consistent with the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights and apply this legislation to companies of any size, while possibly allowing small business in low-risk sectors to be exempt; and apply to all human rights, because all human rights are interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

On June 22, 2022, I tabled a petition along those same lines:

Whereas:

some Canadian companies contribute to human rights abuses and environmental damage around the world;

people who protest these abuses and stand up for their rights are often harassed, attacked or killed. Indigenous peoples, women and marginalized groups are particularly at risk; and

Canada encourages companies to stop these harms from happening in their global operations and supply chains, but does not require them to.

We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada, call on the House of Commons to adopt legislation on due diligence for human and environmental rights that:

would require....

The rest of the petition contains more or less the same formal demands made by the CNCA which I just read. It also aligns with the motion I moved for unanimous consent, which, I would remind members, was rejected by the right in the House.

Let us now discuss the bill in question. I applaud the sponsor, who has attempted previously to bring forward legislation on this matter. There was Bill C‑243, which was withdrawn in favour of the very similar Bill S‑211.

We supported it and we will continue to support it, but it is just not enough, because if we ask ourselves whether the bill helps individuals who are affected obtain justice or redress, the answer is no. Does the bill seek to include communities and workers who are affected? No. Does the bill apply to businesses of all sizes in all sectors? No, it only applies to businesses with over 250 employees and “significant” revenue and assets.

Does the bill apply to all human rights? No, it only applies to forced labour and child labour. Those are hugely important issues, and this is a step forward, but it should go much further. Are businesses required to respect human rights? No, they are only required to report annually on whether they have taken steps to recognize and prevent the use of forced labour, but reporting is not accountability.

Does the bill require businesses to prevent harm? No, it only requires an annual report. Does the bill require businesses to take steps to identify, mitigate, prevent or report human rights violations and environmental damage in their supply chains, because the problem applies to the entire supply chain? No.

There are no compulsory due diligence standards for businesses. Do they face significant consequences if they cause harm or fail to implement due diligence standards? Again, the answer is no.

All the questions I just asked would be answered in the affirmative under the NDP Bill C-282, which I co-sponsored. This bill ticks all the boxes. I therefore encourage the government and the House to refer it to committee for study as soon as possible, because it provides a much better response to what is needed and to the urgency of the situation.

I would also like to talk about Canadian mining companies, which I suggested would be a good subject for study by the Standing Committee on International Trade. First, let me clarify one thing. It is a real stretch to call them “Canadian” mining companies, because they are just using Canada as a “flag of convenience”. Mining companies are often Canadian only on paper. They choose Canada because its lax laws make it ridiculously easy to incorporate here, to present themselves as Canadian companies and to benefit from speculative benefits offered through and by the Toronto Stock Exchange. Canada is just being used as a “flag of convenience”. It is basically a front.

I have seen this first-hand. The Bloc Québécois actually proposed a bill in 2009 that would have gotten to the heart of the issue, as it created an actual review commission that would have been politically independent and would have had the power to conduct its own investigations, without needing a complaint or a political directive. It would not simply have been a symbolic ombudsperson. This commission could have conducted its own investigations and publicly questioned Global Affairs Canada, or Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, as it was called at the time, if the department were even seen to support a mining company that was caught violating human rights.

I travelled to Chile and Colombia, and in Colombia, I saw a mining company that was originally Canadian fall into Chinese hands. Speaking of forced labour, we saw a bus full of prisoners arrive from the People's Republic of China. Once the local miners have been squeezed out, one of the arguments often used to gain acceptance for these projects in mining areas is that they will create jobs. However, bringing in prisoners from the People's Republic of China is not exactly creating local jobs. Furthermore, diplomats must not provide unequivocal support for the aggressive tactics used by Canadian mining companies abroad, as Canadian embassies have been known to do. Embassies are being ordered to provide support through diplomacy.

We also need to talk about money. It is important to talk about that, because Export Development Canada has investments in many problematic companies, including Baru Gold, which was mentioned several times. EDC continued to hand out loans to Teck Resources for its Quebrada Blanca mine in Chile, despite the political crisis and brutal repression going on in that country. In 2019 alone, EDC invested between $1 billion and $1.5 billion just in Chile's extractive sector.

Vale was involved in two recent tailings dam disasters in Brazil. At the company's Brumadinho mine, hundreds of people were killed in January 2019 when a tailings dam collapsed. It is also the co-owner of the mine near Mariana, where a similar disaster wiped out an entire village in 2015. Both mines had been built using the riskiest method regulators would allow. Vale's other activities include a railway along which residents are regularly struck by trains, and a mine that was ordered to shut down several times because of the impact it was having on indigenous tribes.

Vedanta Limited, a subsidiary of Vedanta Resources, received between $100 million and $250 million in loans in 2017. In 2018, there was a massacre at a smelter plant in India run by a subsidiary of Vedanta Resources. Police opened fire on a crowd of thousands who were protesting the planned expansion of the Tuticorin plant. Thirteen people were killed and dozens of others were injured.

According to Emily Dwyer from the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, who testified at committee, some of the other mining companies that received funding from Export Development Canada and were mixed up in human rights violations include Teck Resources and Kinross.

The mining industry in Canada received $6.524 million in funding in 2022. This is a serious matter.

When we talk about accountability and the origin of goods, we need to be serious and take a closer look.

I will now wrap up my speech in order to debate this issue with the rest of the House. We need some genuinely serious policies on this, such as Bill C‑262 and Bill C‑263, which I co-sponsored, and the bill that the Bloc Québécois introduced in 2009 about a review commission for mining companies.

This needs to be taken seriously, because the ombudsperson is currently nothing but a complaints office and a web site. That is no way to deal with the serious, violent, brutal violations happening around the world.

In closing, I want to wish everyone a happy end to the “no new clothes challenge”. March was dubbed “no new clothes” month. That lines up nicely with the theme we are discussing today.

Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill S-211, which claims to fight against forced labour and child labour in supply chains. There is no question that global supply chains continue to be tainted with forced labour and child labour. Millions of people around the world experience conditions of modern slavery. Horrifically, this includes young children who, too often, harvest the food we eat and manufacture the clothes we wear.

Sadly, progress toward eradicating child and forced labour has stalled and even reversed during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, the report from the International Labour Organization warned that child labour was increasing for the first time in two decades. Between 2016 and 2020, the number of children in child labour increased to 160 million worldwide; 79 million of these children, some as young as five years old, are working in conditions considered to be hazardous, which means that the work is likely to harm their health, safety and morals.

Economic impacts of the pandemic, leading to school closures and income loss among low-income families globally, have pushed more children into these dangerous working conditions to try to earn a living. The reality is that forced labour conditions exist in nearly every country. Canada is deeply implicated in perpetuating these human rights abuses. Under the current legislative framework, there is no corporate accountability for companies that profit from the exploitation in their supply chains.

According to a report from World Vision in 2016, it is estimated that over 1,200 companies operating in Canada are importing over 34 billion dollars' worth of goods at high risk of being produced by child or forced labour every year. The agricultural and grocery industry is one of the worst offenders for forced labour and child labour: 71% of all child labour takes place in the agricultural sector, and many of these items end up on Canadian grocery store shelves.

In 2019, more than 3.7 billion dollars' worth of risky food products were imported into Canada, a 63% increase from 10 years ago. During the same pandemic period when Canada's major grocery chains raked in record profits, the use of child and forced labour in agricultural supply chains increased. As Canadians get gouged with greedflation at the grocery checkout, corporate giants fail to take action on ending forced and child labour in their supply chains. World Vision reported that corporate social responsibility reports from Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys, Canada's three largest grocers, yield “little meaningful information about what they are doing to address the risk of child labour in their supply chains.” There are record profits, yet zero accountability to respect human rights. This is egregiously wrong.

Unfortunately, we know that these issues extend far beyond the agricultural sector. In 2021, CBC reported that Canadian clothing brands sold items manufactured by North Korean forced labour at a Chinese factory. Recently, I spoke about the genocide against Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims. This is again relevant to raise, because these issues are connected. Many products sold in Canada are manufactured with Uighur forced labour. Between 2017 to 2019, it is estimated that more than 80,000 Uighurs were forcibly transferred out of the Uighur region to work in factories across China. In 2020 alone, reports reveal that 83 global companies were indirectly or directly involved in employing Uighur workers under conditions of forced labour. From food products, clothing and textiles to the supply chains of major auto manufacturers, the use of Uighur forced labour is widespread.

Canada can and must do more to uphold human rights and work to eradicate child and forced labour. The NDP wants to ensure that products imported into Canada are not produced with forced labour or child labour. New Democrats believe that Canada has a responsibility to ensure that supply chains of products sold in Canada are free from these egregious human rights violations.

The government has an international human rights obligation to do this, but due to the inaction of successive Liberal and Conservative governments, Canada is lagging behind other jurisdictions. European countries such as France have already passed due diligence legislation, which requires that companies take action to address child labour and forced labour. Importantly, this also provides legal recourse if efforts are shown to be inadequate.

The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability has been calling for human rights and environmental due diligence legislation in Canada. The organization has even drafted model legislation, providing a blueprint for writing into Canadian law the corporate duty to respect human rights and the environment.

For over a decade, the CNCA has also been calling for an independent ombudsperson office with the power to investigate human rights complaints related to Canadian corporate activity abroad. The Liberals announced that they would create this independent ombudsperson office in 2018, yet today this is just another empty promise from the government. Instead, the government has created a powerless advisory post.

It is clear that there is much work to be done. That is why NDP members, in working with policy experts on these issues, have put forward two critical pieces of legislation. Bill C-262, the corporate responsibility to protect human rights act, would implement the human rights and environmental due diligence that is needed. It would hold companies accountable for their actions and allow victims of human rights and environmental harm the statutory right to bring a lawsuit against that company. Bill C-263 would give the Office of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise the powers needed to actually do its job and investigate and hold companies accountable.

The CNCA, which includes member groups such as Oxfam Canada, Amnesty International Canada and Human Rights Watch Canada, supports these steps, but it is yet to be seen whether other parties will do the right thing.

Today, we are here debating Bill S-211. From the outset, the NDP recognized that this bill was deeply flawed. New Democrats agree with the view that CNCA shares: that, unamended, this bill is damaging because it creates the appearance of action to end modern slavery without actually having that effect. As currently drafted, Bill S-211 advances none of the essential elements of an effective supply chain law.

According to the CNCA:

Bill S-211 would require companies to report on what steps, if any, they have taken to prevent and reduce the risk of forced or child labour in their supply chains. It would only apply to a small minority of companies; it does not require these companies to stop using child or forced labour or to conduct human rights due diligence; and it is silent on other egregious human rights abuses (such as mass rape, murder and torture), as its focus is limited to child or forced labour.

Recognizing the flaws of this bill, the NDP proposed six amendments at committee stage to improve the legislation based on expert testimony, yet the government rejected all of them.

Canada needs to do much more to fight forced labour and child labour. The Minister of Labour's own mandate letter instructs him to “introduce legislation to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and ensure that Canadian businesses operating abroad do not contribute to human rights abuses.”

Bill S-211 fails to do that. Therefore, the NDP will be voting against this legislation. We will continue to advocate for legislation that actually addresses the issue and commit to eradicating forced labour and child labour. Having the appearance under this bill to be doing something is not good enough.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I was just about to jump in and say that I don't know where C-262 is. On C-263, I know Heather is way out there. It's—

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I just have a point of order, Madam Chair. I wonder if Mr. Cannings could offer to the committee where C-262 and C-263 are on the Order Paper. That would be helpful to members.

[Meg Gingrich]

Sure. Thank you very much.

I think Mr. McKay explained it fairly well in terms of what some of the differences are. It sort of comes down to a difference in the expectation of what's possible right now. I agree that Bill C-262 and Bill C-263 are still possible to pass if we can get the political support for them. I don't think it's a question of them going too far or anything like that. Transparency and a requirement to report are important. Again, I think Mr. McKay has very good intentions, and everything like that, but I think it comes down to what we think is possible. I have high expectations that as a country and as a society we can pass bills like this, which put real responsibility on Canadian companies to ensure adherence to human rights, labour rights and environmental rights across their supply chains, including the subcontractors and so on.

In terms of the CORE, as I've said, that is something we have supported the creation of, but I think that as it stands right now, it is simply not strong enough to be able to do much. We're trying our best to use it in the government sector to see what will happen, and we're happy to try to use what exists, but we always want to try to make things just a bit better for everyone.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

—for the all the work he's done over the years on this file. I really appreciate that, but I would say that Bill C-262 and Bill C-263 are on offer. They're on offer to the government, because this is what the corporate responsibility sector is saying is what is necessary.

I'd just like to offer the rest of my time to Ms. Gingrich to respond to your comments about the difference between those bills and why Bill C-262 and Bill C-263 will and should produce better results.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to weigh in on the debate about transparency legislation versus due diligence legislation and what's on offer and what's not on offer.

Transparency legislation is what it seems to be, which is that every year a Canadian entity has to examine its supply chain and satisfy itself that there is no slavery in the supply chain. A CEO has to sign a statement to that effect, and if the statement they sign is false, there will be the same impact as there would be if an accountant signed a false statement, for instance. This applies to a certain level of entities all across the country. If you don't file, you're fined and you also expose yourself to various investigations by the Minister of Public Safety.

That's what Bill S-211 is. That's on offer. The third reading and debate are coming up on March 6.

What's being talked about is Bill C-262, which is due diligence legislation, which, as the witnesses have acknowledged, places a very significant obligation on companies. Bill C-262 is, with greatest respect to Mr. Julian, an aspirational bill, because it's not likely to be debated in this Parliament.

If the House is to do anything, the only thing really on offer is Bill S-211.

That being said, there are two countries that have due diligence legislation—Germany and France. Germany's threshold is 3,000 employees. Any company with fewer than 3,000 doesn't have to comply with the legislation. France's legislation stipulates 5,000 employees, or 10,000 worldwide. Those are the companies.

The transparency legislation catches a lot more companies, and it generates information. Maybe, in the fullness of time, you'll be able to move to due diligence legislation.

Due diligence legislation cuts off the vast majority of Canadian companies, because who has 3,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 employees, plus multiple billions of euros in revenues?

That's the essence of the debate. It's not as though I think a bill on due diligence wouldn't be useful for companies. It's just that we're not there yet.

What's on offer is that we go from being, frankly, Canadian laggards to world leaders. Only a couple of other countries have written transparency legislation. They have rewritten it to make it stronger, but it's still weaker than ours. Australia have just implemented theirs, and we jump Australia as well because, again, our legislation is stronger.

The debate here is that, as particularly the witness from the steelworkers and some of her colleagues believe, perfect is actually the enemy of good. I do not take that view and, colleagues, I don't think you should take that view.

Who knows what the life of this Parliament is going to be, but I'd really like it if, following the March 6 debate, it would come to a final vote and we could have something on the books.

May I say that Canadians talk a good talk. Walking the talk is sometimes a little more difficult. This will enable us to actually walk the talk, and it will bring us forward.

I have to say that this legislation has been broadly supported. It's not limited to the mining industry, although it will certainly affect the mining industry. Maybe I shouldn't say it, but the Mining Association of Canada and PDAC, the prospectors and developers, welcome the legislation because it distinguishes them from some of their somewhat unscrupulous competitors. It has considerable support.

In the 31 seconds I have left, I'm going to ask the witness whether she thinks that the good should be the enemy of the perfect, or if she supports the idea.

By the way, before you answer that question, I would support Bill C-263—which, again, is an aspirational bill—and I do think the CORE ombudsperson should have the powers that are in it.

Thus endeth the homily. I thank you very much.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Would it be advantageous to have bills like C-262 and C-263, which really put a stronger lens on this?

[Meg Gingrich]

Bill C-263 would be to expand and rectify some of the things that we think are wrong with the CORE. That was something we supported from the beginning, but once it came into place, our view was that there wasn't enough power within that position for the ombudsperson.

Bill C-263 would see a CORE with more teeth, if I can put it that way, with the power to compel evidence and testimony, for example, which is not possible at the moment.

Regarding Bill C-262, there are several parts of that where it would require real due diligence along supply chains and it would put the onus on the company to identify potential issues along the supply chain—whether it's environmental, human rights or violation of labour rights—and then actually prevent and mitigate those and have that responsibility to do so. Then it would provide access to remedy within the Canadian legal system if the company doesn't meet its obligations. Those are some very important aspects of those two bills that we have supported.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

You mentioned that two bills that have been tabled in the House of Commons would help. They are Bill C-262 and Bill C-263.

Can you perhaps expand on what each might do to help the situation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to our witnesses.

I want to acknowledge that we have John McKay with us at committee today, who I think is the founder of C-262 and C-263.

[Meg Gingrich, Assistant to the National Director, United Steelworkers Union]

Thank you, Chair. Through you, I would also like to thank the clerk and all members of the committee for the opportunity to join you here today.

My name is Meg Gingrich, and I'm here with the United Steelworkers.

The United Steelworkers union is the largest private sector union in North America. It includes 225,000 members in nearly every economic sector, right across Canada, about 15,000 of whom work in the mining industry.

As a labour union, our core mission is to improve the lives of our members. That work necessarily extends to fighting for better conditions for all workers everywhere. Our members understand that to serve Canadian workers, we have to fight the race to the bottom of salaries and working conditions and flip that old paradigm on its head.

That starts by holding Canadian companies accountable for their global operations. By raising the basic standards everywhere and closing the delta between fair pay and the need to respect human rights in Canada and in other countries, we can decrease the incentive to cut Canadian jobs and compensation in favour of operations elsewhere, and we can secure a new foundation on which we can build stronger workers' rights here.

Put simply, doing the right thing for workers around the world is good for working people in Canada. At the USW we do this work directly through our Steelworkers Humanity Fund and in collaboration with civil society organizations and a variety of coalitions, some of whom you've heard from here, and that includes the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability.

It is through the CNCA and the Non-Negotiable campaign that we've been actively lobbying Parliament to pass mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. As you know, that legislation, Bill C-262, is at the heart of addressing the concerns that are being raised in and by the study you're undertaking.

With all due respect to the work done by diplomats and those in any form of foreign service, I'm sure we can all agree that a country's foreign policy includes the international operations and business dealings of the private sector. Canada's mining sector is active in at least 100 countries. Without oversight of the private sector, the Canadian government risks harming some of its bilateral relationships and foreign policy goals in aid, trade, diplomacy and defence.

The impacts on the Canadian economy as a whole, as well as on communities and individual workers and their families, is significant. Governments in other countries are understanding these facts and are taking action. Recent G7 discussions saw a reinforced collective support for working together towards trade that lifts up workers, businesses and peoples.

However, frankly, here at home we're discouraged to see the Canadian government pushing legislation. We're talking about Bill S-211 now, which does not actually create a legal obligation to stop the practice or provide a path to remedy for anyone affected by a violation. This will not stop the abuses.

As this committee has already heard, to be robust and effective, legislation on this must legally oblige Canadian companies operating or sourcing abroad to identify, prevent and mitigate violations and provide remedies to those affected and for damage caused by their operations. This must apply to all human rights violations and environmental damage.

Some might suggest to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but as you may be aware, the experience of a similar law in the U.K. and other jurisdictions shows that modern slavery acts and the reporting only requirements have not brought the change they promised. Worse, when compared to the effective changes proposed in legislation before the House, for example, the corporate responsibility to protect human rights act, passing Bill S-211 could actually hurt the movement towards increased corporate accountability by being pitched as enough and used as an excuse to stop further work on this file.

Another more effective course of action would be to finally give the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise the investigative and enforcement powers she needs to effectively do the job she's been tasked with doing. Again, another bill before the House, Bill C-263, would be a step in the right direction in terms of that goal.

In advance of any questions, I would like to close on this point. We all understand that jobs and increased compensation rely on corporate success and profitability. It's not about deciding between doing the right thing or making a profit, because as we watch global awareness and the focus on corporate accountability rise, these goals are increasingly connected.

Thank you.

[Dr. Silvia Vasquez-Olguin, Coordinator, Latin America, Gender Justice and Extractivism, KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives]

Thank you very much.

I want to address the chair and the members of the committee for one second, to get you to think about the amazing opportunity you have today. Let's think about what we are learning. We're receiving a lot of information. Let's keep our minds and hearts open to receive it.

Since the creation of KAIROS more than three decades ago, and even before that, global partners, church members and various Canadian NGO networks have been calling on Canada to address allegations of human rights abuses and environmental harm linked to Canadian businesses operating abroad. How? Through stronger corporate accountability measures. Corporate accountability in the Canadian extractive sector is a gender issue.

KAIROS is not anti-miner or anti-business. KAIROS advocates for the rights of indigenous people to be upheld and for the inclusion of women in decision-making spaces, including the right to free, prior and informed consent.

It's been noted that some companies have a reputation of mistaking consultation for consent. When it happens, partner organizations around the world have consistently sounded the alarm on the concerning attitudes and consequences of Canadian extractive companies' mining, oil fracking and gas extraction operating in their territories.

Mining activities have consequences more evidently local but undeniably national and regional. Regarding women, mining impacts the territories of their bodies, their lands and their organizations, and has deepened the structural violence exerted against them.

Furthermore, mining activities become a fundamental nexus within the enclaves of a masculine-focused economy. Mining is developed mainly by men in the field, which leads to a reconfiguration and a reprioritization of local social activities that didn't exist before the arrival of the companies.

The introduction of a utilitarian and monetary model of engaging with nature leads to the commodification of important natural environments and later environmental destruction. I can bring examples of that.

The productive process has increased the numbers and intensity of daily violent encounters within the communities, particularly violence against women and girls. Nothing can show that more painfully than the El Salvador case in Las Cañas.

In the last decade alone, extractive mining has increased in Meso-America and South America, leading to more than 200 conflicts around mining activities in just four countries: Ecuador, Colombia, Peru and Chile, increasing the violation of human rights and the criminalization of environmental land and water defenders.

Women and indigenous communities are vital stewards of land and water. Fresh water is vital. Women and girls are vital for the communities and their livelihoods. Water is needed for everyday life tasks that usually fall upon women to perform, such as cooking, cleaning, child-rearing and cultivating. These jobs are socially and conveniently invisible and underestimated.

Women protect the social and community structure of preserving knowledge and transmitting it. At the cost of their well-being, their safety and sometimes their lives, they stand in a long-standing fight against corporations extracting resources from their lands. For their efforts, they are stigmatized, ostracized and, in many cases, criminalized, threatened, attacked and even killed.

Local women are the centre of building a just, equitable and lasting peace in their regions, and large-scale resource extraction projects undermine their efforts.

How can we do this better? I think the task starts at home through strong accountability and responsible legislation. We have to move on. Bill C-262 and Bill C-263 are the core of solving this problem, and the pun is intended.

Because of all this, I'm here now in front of all of you to remind you that the lives of women and girls around the world are under threat more than ever, and the time to act is now.

At KAIROS, we believe that women are leaders in community resistance to extractivism. Because of that, we advocate for including women and water and land defenders in the decision-making process and for protecting them, because activists are always under threat.

Because extractivist activities cause severe environmental and social impacts, which often are invisible because they happen in the bodies and lives of women and girls, KAIROS advocates for gendered impacts of resource extraction to be considered a key aspect of business development.

Finally, because of environmental racism and colonialism and for many other reasons, most of the extractive mining operations are found on or near indigenous territories in the global south. KAIROS advocates to protect the rights of indigenous and local communities of the global south to be fully informed and consulted before operations are even started on their territories, and to recognize the possibility of rejection.

Dear members of the committee, one life lost and one inch of land destroyed is one too many. You have the unbelievable power to stop it.

Thank you.

[Catherine Coumans]

I think it's really important to know that the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, which has over 40 member organizations across Canada, created draft legislation, and that draft legislation was for mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence. It was adopted into the bill that Peter Julian tabled in March of last year, BillC-262.

Heather McPherson's bill was on the CORE, and that was BillC-263.

Just to briefly talk a little bit more about the mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence, what this bill would require is that companies headquartered in Canada would report regularly, probably yearly, on risk that they have established throughout their entire supply chain. They have to look to see if there are human beings at risk or environments at risk through their operations and the operations of their subsidiaries and contractors. They then have to report on the risks that they've identified.

Beyond that, they would now also have to address that risk. They would have to actively make sure that if people are being abused through slave labour and all of the things that I talked about, such as forced evictions, killings by security guards, rapes and all of the things that are going on at various mining companies, they have to be addressed—not just reported on, but addressed.

Finally, the last really important point is that if those issues are not addressed, people can bring a court case to Canada. There will be a cause of action created through this legislation that allows people to bring a case against the parent company in Canada. They wouldn't have to worry about forum non conveniens or about the corporate veil. That's really important.

[Catherine Coumans, Research Coordinator , MiningWatch Canada]

Thank you.

Since 1999, MiningWatch Canada has been working with mining-affected communities and indigenous peoples struggling to protect their human rights and their environment from egregious impacts and abuses by Canadian mining companies operating in Africa, Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region.

For over 20 years, we have been dealing with the brutal realities of violent evictions of indigenous peoples from their homes by mine personnel, shootings of local men and boys, and brutal rapes of women and girls by mine security, as well as the use of forced labour in places such as Papua New Guinea, Tanzania, Guatemala and Eritrea.

We work with communities facing health crises and the loss of food security because of rivers and groundwater contaminated by mine waste, as well as the pollution of soil and air from mineral processing at mine sites. We grieve with communities over the loss of indigenous sacred sites and over the loss of life due to catastrophic tailings dam failures in places such as the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Argentina and the Philippines.

These environmental and human rights abuses have not diminished in the 23 years that I have been working at MiningWatch Canada. Year after year, the mining industry is expanding its global footprint—often in countries with weak governance—in search of new lucrative ore bodies, expanding into ever more remote and often indigenous territories and into critical ecosystems such as the Amazon, the paramos and glaciers. Year after year, we are confronted with new communities desperately seeking protection from the harm they've endured because of the operations of a Canadian exploration company or junior or senior mining company in places such as Kyrgyzstan, Chile, Ecuador, Colombia, Mexico and small islands in Indonesia and the Pacific.

The common denominator that ties together these human rights and environmental abuses by Canadian mining companies operating overseas is a lack of accountability. We are not talking about a few bad apples here; we're talking about a systemic reality in which Canadian mining companies, large and small, are operating with effective impunity—impunity that enables and drives further abuses.

Since 1997, nine cases have been filed in Canadian courts against Cambior, Copper Mesa, Anvil, Hudbay, Tahoe and Nevsun for allegations arising from their overseas operations. These cases concern assaults, shootings, gang rapes of local indigenous peoples by mine security, the use of slave labour and the contamination of a river by mine waste.

These are just the tip of the iceberg of egregious harm inflicted, as it remains extremely difficult to overcome formidable legal hurdles such as forum non conveniens and the corporate veil to bring cases in Canada. The most recent case filed in Canada was just in November 2022, and is it against Barrick Gold, a member of the Mining Association of Canada. This is the third case filed against Barrick and its subsidiaries since 2015 on behalf of victims of violence by mine security and police guarding Barrick's North Mara gold mine in Tanzania. We're talking about the rape, killing and maiming of local Kuria people by mine security. These have been repeatedly reported since at least 2009.

Additionally, villagers are currently being forcibly evicted to make way for mine expansion. Under armed police guard, distraught parents and children look on in horror as their homes are bulldozed while their clothes are still drying on the line. There is no resettlement plan for these already vulnerable indigenous people, who now face homelessness and food insecurity.

Since 2007, five U.N. treaty bodies have focused specifically on harm caused by Canadian mining companies operating overseas and have reminded Canada of its duty to protect human rights at home and abroad. In 2016, the international Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights asked Canada to “develop a legal framework that affords legal remedies to people who have been victims of activities of such corporations operating abroad.” Canada must finally take comprehensive and effective action.

We know what must be done: Canada must implement mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation, as detailed in private member's Bill C-262, tabled in March 2022. Canada must give the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise investigatory powers to compel witness testimony and documents, as committed to by the government in 2018 and as proposed by a majority of members of the foreign affairs committee in their report of June 2021.

Thank you.

[Emily Dwyer]

I would repeat that, for us, effective legislation is legislation that requires companies to actually take action and not only report, that helps people to access Canadian courts, and that applies to all human rights. That is represented in Bill C-262 and it is not represented in Bill S-211.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I will direct this last minute to you, Ms. Dwyer.

We know that Bill C-262, which was brought forward by MP Julian, is strong legislation. It's available. We'd be happy to have the Liberals adopt that. What do you see in that bill that you don't see in this bill?

You have a very short time, but what's the last word you would like to share with us?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

The Minister of Labour's mandate letter instructs him to “introduce legislation to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and ensure that Canadian businesses operating abroad do not contribute to human rights abuses”.

The two bills before us, Bill S‑211 and Bill C‑262, are parliamentary initiatives.

Do you expect anything from the government in addition to these parliamentary initiatives?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I understand from your remarks that you favour Bill C‑262 over Bill S‑211.

How would passing Bill S‑211 prevent the subsequent passing of Bill C‑262?

Corporate Social Responsibility

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the second petition I have, the undersigned recognize that companies based in Canada are contributing to human rights abuses and environmental damage around the world. The people who protect against these abuses and defend their rights are often harassed, attacked or killed. Indigenous people, women and marginalized groups are especially under threat, and Canada encourages but does not require companies to prevent such harms in their global operations and supply chains.

The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to adopt Bill C-262, which is an example of human rights and environmental due diligence legislation that would require companies to prevent adverse human rights impacts, require them to do their due diligence and require meaningful consequences for companies that fail to carry this out and report on adequate due diligence.

I am pleased to table both of these petitions today.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to stand in this place and represent the people of Edmonton Strathcona.

I find this to be such an important debate for us to have, but I have to say that I am disappointed that it is happening in this manner and not when more parliamentarians can join in and there can be more people to participate in the discussion. After so many years, I think the genocide happening against the Uighur people is something every parliamentarian in this place must take with the utmost seriousness, and I worry that it is not being taken as such this evening.

I am a relatively new member of Parliament and have only been in this place for three years. One of the very first things that happened after I was elected was an appointment to the international human rights subcommittee. As I think I have brought up before in this place, my whole career has been about international development, foreign affairs and sustainable development around the world, so I was appointed to be the New Democrat member on that subcommittee. I was so happy to have that opportunity, because I feel like in my heart I have spent most of my career trying to fight for the human rights of people around the world, and this felt like an opportunity to do that and perhaps take it to the next level.

One of the very first studies we undertook looked at the genocide of the Uighur people in China. I have two brothers who are very rough and tumble with me, and I was beaten up many times as a child when I was growing up. I have lots of cousins too. I think of myself as a relatively tough and robust person, but the testimony I heard from expert witnesses, Uighurs and people who experienced the genocide was the most harrowing thing I have ever heard to date. The stories of rape, of forced sterilization, of people being surveilled and of the very systematic and cold attempts to erase a people were horrific for me to hear. It was very difficult.

Of course, I am only hearing these stories; I am not experiencing them, so I always try to imagine what it must be like to be somebody from Xinjiang who is dealing with this and is not seeing the world stand up for them and not hearing people in Canada and around the world say that they are not going to tolerate this. How difficult must it be for the Uighurs not only in China but in Canada to know their loved ones are experiencing this genocide?

When I come to this debate, that is what I bring. I bring the testimony that I heard at the international human rights subcommittee. I bring all of the stories I heard in many meetings with members of the Uighur community and with many members of the community who fight for human rights.

I think this is a vitally important debate and it is vitally important that we are all here, but it was disappointing for me that we did not vote to have a debate on the report that came out of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. There was no opportunity for that debate to happen.

Of course, we know the Uighurs have raised concerns about these issues for years. We know they have been calling for more action not only from Canadian parliamentarians but from other parliamentarians for years. In fact, the recommendations that came forward from the report of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights were very clear. We asked that the Government of China be condemned for its “actions against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang”. We asked to “work with allies and multilateral organizations to help international observers gain unfettered access to Xinjiang”. We asked to “provide support through international overseas development assistance to civil society organizations especially in countries that are geopolitically important to China's Belt and Road Initiative”.

We asked to “recognize that the acts being committed in Xinjiang against Uyghurs constitute genocide and work within legal frameworks” of what that meant. We also asked to “impose sanctions under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act on all Government of China officials responsible for the perpetration of grave human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims.”

We brought forward these recommendations, but we have not seen the level of action from the government that I think all of us in this place should be demanding. We have not seen the empathy and care that I think we have seen for other conflicts.

One of the things I struggle with the most in this place is that we are often in a situation where we are asked to prioritize human rights, to amplify the rights of one group of people over the rights of another. I do not know how to do that. I do not know how as parliamentarians we can do that. Of course, we need to provide whatever support is necessary to help the people in Ukraine who are struggling with a genocide of their own from the Russian Federation. We need to ensure that the people in Ukraine can flee violence, that they can come to Canada and seek safety here and that they are protected and cared for 100%.

However, as parliamentarians, we need to recognize that being from Ukraine does not make someone's life more valuable than being from Afghanistan, being a Uighur from China, being from Yemen, being from Palestine or being from Tigray. We need to recognize that Canada has an important role. We are a country of such opportunity and such wealth, and we have an important role in this world to open up our doors and welcome those who are fleeing violence, those who are fleeing persecution and those who are fleeing genocide. That is such a fundamental role for Canada. That is how many of us ended up here.

I am, in fact, a settler in this country. My family came when the Scots were being persecuted in Scotland. Canada opened its doors and welcomed us here, and, of course, generations of McPhersons, and I am also a McCoy, have flourished in Canada. Providing that opportunity for people around the world is what Canada is all about and what we need to be able to do.

I support the idea of bringing Uighurs here and ensuring that Uighurs are able to flee genocide to come here, but I have deep concerns. I think everybody in the House, including members of the government, must recognize that IRCC is broken. Immigration services with the government are broken. If anyone in the House does not agree that this is a problem, they are not listening to their constituents. They are not listening to the fact that we have massive delays and massive problems.

In Edmonton, Alberta, 636 students who were approved to study at the University of Alberta could not do so this fall because they could not get a study permit. It cost the University of Alberta $6 million. These are people who wanted to come here to study. I therefore have some concerns about the IRCC's capacity to actually welcome all of the newcomers we need to be welcoming in Canada. Absolutely there are people who are suffering around the world, and the Uighurs have been suffering for years. For years they have been calling for attention to this horrific genocide. However, Canada needs to do better at welcoming people into our country. We need to be better at doing the work of government to ensure that people can come here.

For me, I do not want to say that we need to limit how many Ukrainians, Afghans, Tigrayans or Syrians come to Canada so we can make sure that Uighurs are able to come. There needs to be something done so that all people fleeing violence have access to come here, are able to be treated with respect, are able to be protected and able to be brought here. I have this deep worry that there is a Peter-Paul mentality with the government.

In August 2021, we were going to welcome a huge number of Afghans into our country. Then, of course, the horrific war started in Ukraine, and we were going to welcome an unlimited number of Ukrainians into our country. That is great, but we do not have the capacity to do that right now.

My worry is how we are going to get there. How can we work with the government? How can all of us in this place work with and reinforce to the government how important it is that it fix our broken immigration system so that we can be the country that so many Canadians believe we are, and certainly that so many Canadians believe we should be.

There is another thing I want to raise. In terms of immigration, there are things that we can do, things that need to happen and things we can expedite to make sure that Uighurs are protected, but there are other things we can do to help the people in Xinjiang who are being persecuted right now. There is legislation before the foreign affairs committee, Bill S-211, that looks at forced labour. My opinion, and members may say this is always the NDP opinion, is that the bill does not go far enough. It would not do near enough to protect people from forced labour, slave labour or child labour around the world.

My dear colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, brought forward Bill C-262, which is an excellent example of what forced labour legislation could look like. It aligns very much with what is happening around the world, in Germany, the EU, France, Australia and the U.K. This country is at least a decade behind other countries in ensuring that we have good forced labour legislation in place.

It has been in mandate letter after mandate letter, which used to mean that action would be taken, but it does not appear to mean that any longer. I look at things like that and ask how we can make sure that Canada is not complicit in supporting forced labour, that we are ensuring that the cotton, the tomatoes and the products that come into Canada are not produced with forced or slave labour. What can we do to make that better?

There is one last thing I want to talk about today. Here is what I am struggling with in the House of Commons right now. I worry that what we are doing in this place is politicizing human rights. I worry that we are using it as a tool to cause shenanigans or gum up the work of government, and if that is the case, we should be so deeply ashamed of ourselves. Human rights are of such fundamental importance that, when they are used as a tool to gum up the work of government, it demeans every member of Parliament. When we use human rights as a trick to force things through or to stop things from going forward, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

When we talk about human rights in this place, we need to be honest with ourselves and talk about human rights across the board, because it is not okay that the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party refuses to talk about human rights in Yemen, as both of them are complicit in the selling of arms to the regime that is propping up that war.

It is not all right that neither one of them will talk about human rights in Palestine. Children in Palestine are being murdered, and neither of the parties will talk about that. That is not all right. They do not get to pick and choose human rights. They do not get to choose that the people being murdered in Tigray matter less than other people. They do not get to choose that the Uighurs do not matter because we have an economic relationship with China. That is not now human rights work. For every one of us in this place, if we believe in protecting human rights, then a human right is a human right is a human right.

It does not matter if it is a child in Palestine. It does not matter if it is a child in Yemen. It does not matter if it is a woman in Xinjiang. It does not matter if it is a woman in Ukraine. If we have a feminist foreign policy, and if we believe in human rights, all human rights matter.

I am deeply afraid that in this place we are choosing to politicize human rights. We are choosing to use human rights to forward our agenda and gum up the works of Parliament. About that, I am deeply worried.

There is a genocide happening against the Uighurs in Xinjiang. There is a genocide happening in China right now. Parliamentarians have an obligation to stand up to protect the people being persecuted. We have an obligation to welcome those people to Canada. It is not even an obligation. It is a privilege to welcome those people to Canada.

I will always stand in this place and fight for human rights. I will tell members that I will fight for all human rights, not just some of them.

Corporate Social Responsibility

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have an important petition that I am presenting today on behalf of over 100 Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They are concerned about companies based in Canada that are contributing to human rights abuses and environmental damage around the world.

We often see situations where human rights activists and environmental activists are being tortured, killed and intimidated. We have seen widespread examples of sexual violence, even slavery, on the sites of Canadian-owned corporations. The undersigned are asking the Canadian government to put in place due diligence legislation that would require companies to prevent adverse human rights impacts and environmental damage, require companies to do their due diligence and ensure a legal right for people who have been harmed to be able to seek justice in Canadian courts.

I would add that my Bill C-262 does exactly that. The petitioners are asking the Canadian government to push forward legislation such as that.

Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, again, I would like to thank the member for bringing this important legislation forward. I have listened to my colleagues in the House today, and I am struck by the fact that so many of us are working so hard on human rights legislation and trying to move further, trying to do more and trying to make things happen faster for people around the world who are suffering injustice; particularly injustice that is happening at the hands of Canadian companies.

I feel hope when I see that there are members from all parties who are working on this. I feel encouraged by the words I have heard from my colleagues. However, I do want to say that as a member of the opposition, my role is to continue to push and to continue to ask the government to do more. While I will be supporting this legislation, when it goes to the foreign affairs committee I will be proposing many recommendations and amendments, because while I am happy that this legislation is coming forward and it is timely and necessary, in typical NDP fashion, I do not think that this legislation goes far enough.

Around 11% of the world's child population, 168 million children between the ages of five and 17, are forced to work or denied the opportunity to go to school. According to Article 32 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, child labour should be protected from economic exploitation and any harmful work. Furthermore, the article declares that “state parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to ensure the implementation” of restrictions.

We know, for example, that research conducted in 2016 found that over 1,200 companies operating in Canada at the time were importing goods that were at high risk of being produced by a child or through forced labour. The majority of these companies disclosed very little, if any, information on the policies, practices and processes they had in place to address these rules.

As parliamentarians, we need to think about what we would do to make sure that these people are protected, and we have an obligation to ensure that Canadian companies are held to account. We know that Canadians treasure our reputation as human rights defenders. We treasure our reputation as playing a role in the world where we recognize human rights: we call them out and we stand for them. Unfortunately, that has not been the reality in many parts of the world for some time. I am, as I said, encouraged that we are coming back to a place where we are looking at some of these issues.

Bill S-211 is a starting point. I think that has been said in the House already, and I will repeat that. It is a starting point. It means that the federal government can lead companies to improve and expand capacity to address supply chain risks as corporate governance standards are increased over time. However, an effective bill to address forced labour and other human rights abuses would require companies to prevent harm from happening, and not just file an annual report. It would require companies to change their behaviour and do due diligence, and not just report it. It would give victims of abuse access to remedy, and not just let the companies continue business as usual.

As it stands now, Bill S-211 needs to be revised so that it actually can help prevent forced and child labour rather than simply act as a diversion. Members may think that I am speaking cynically. I have to say that I feel that my cynicism is somewhat justified. Prior to being elected in the House, I worked in civil society. I worked very hard on human rights for people around the world who suffered at the hands of Canadian mining companies.

I have watched the Conservative government, and I have watched the Liberal government put in place legislation to supposedly help protect indigenous groups, women and those who are marginalized from the impacts of bad corporate actors that are predominantly, as I said, in mining and textiles.

Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals did a good job of that. Neither of those governments put in place an ombudsperson who could do the job. The talk was there and the words were there, particularly from our current government, but none of the action was there.

I brought forward a piece of private member's legislation that I certainly hope people in this House would support. It would ask that the CORE ombudsperson have the ability to compel testimony.

This legislation, and I know it is a beginning step, is weaker than the NPD's proposed legislation on human rights and corporate responsibility. My colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, brought forward Bill C-262. My bill is Bill C-263. These bills are what is truly required if Canada is going to walk the talk on human rights. Mandatory human rights due diligence legislation, as proposed in Bill C-262, is the global best practice. It takes what we have learned from France, Germany and Norway, what is now being proposed in the European Union and what ought to be Canada's stated end goal.

As I said, I am going to bring forward amendments, but I have some concerns about the implementation. The member from the government mentioned earlier that there is work being done because there are things in ministers' mandate letters. Unfortunately, none of that work has happened.

Every day, there is genocide happening against the Uighur people. We have not acted on that in this place. Those mandate letter commitments have not been followed through on. Every day, we talk about it in the House, express outrage and send thoughts and prayers, but when it actually comes down to doing the work to stop the products made with slave labour, we have not done that at the government level yet. The mandate letters have not been fulfilled.

As I said, Canadians so strongly believe in the need for human rights legislation. They so strongly believe in the importance of protecting human rights. Of course we are happy to see this first step. Of course this is an important piece for us. New Democrats have always called for the end of child labour and forced labour. Of course we want to ensure that products imported into Canada are not produced with forced or child labour. Of course we want to make sure that companies are reporting on the measures they are taking to prevent and reduce risk.

We have worked long on that file, as New Democrats. As I said earlier, we proposed strong legislation. Members from the New Democratic Party have stood in this place and brought forward ideas and legislation. They have pushed to have the CORE ombudsperson. They have pushed to have some of these things done in a more sustainable and more effective way.

I will be working with CNCA, the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability. I will be working with civil society. I will be working with a number of different groups that focus on corporate accountability, and I will be bringing forward the amendments they are proposing to strengthen this legislation and to make sure that what we actually pass, what we actually bring forward, will do the job that needs to be done.

If we are given the tools in this place to hold the government to account, if we are given the tools to hold business and Canadian companies to account, we can actually make a difference. We can actually protect people around the world. We have that obligation. We are running out of time.

While I thank the member for bringing this forward, this bill is not complete. I look forward to working with him and many others to make sure that this is a much more complete bill.

Corporate Responsibility to Protect Human Rights Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-262, An Act respecting the corporate responsibility to prevent, address and remedy adverse impacts on human rights occurring in relation to business activities conducted abroad.

Mr. Speaker, with slavery, torture, murder and systemic sexual violence, Canadian corporations overseas have sometimes been involved in the most egregious violations of human rights. Up until now, there has been utter and complete impunity for these appalling acts.

That is why today I am tabling the corporate responsibility to protect human rights act. I thank my seconder, the terrific member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona. This bill would oblige Canadian companies abroad to maintain due diligence on human rights at all times and would provide for the ability of victims to sue these companies for human rights violations abroad.

Corporate responsibility is everyone's responsibility. I hope all members of the House will support this important bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)