Bill C-282

An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management)

This enactment amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act so that the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot make certain commitments with respect to international trade regarding certain goods.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today.

I want to build upon what my colleague mentioned earlier today. Several of us around this table support the supply management sector. In fact, I had meetings with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario just the other day in my office. In fact, I had the opportunity to work for the Dairy Farmers of Ontario.

Having said that, we are here to look at Bill C-282 and reconcile the two different kinds of visions that we're seeing here today.

I'm going to go to Mr. Sherman first.

Did the sponsor of the legislation reach out to your organization to seek feedback on this potential legislation?

[Paulin Bouchard, President, Fédération des producteurs d’œufs du Québec]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the invitation.

I am Paulin Bouchard, president of the Fédération des producteurs d'œufs du Québec. I am here with our vice-president, Mr. Sylvain Lapierre. We are both egg producers from Quebec.

Our federation represents 199 producers whose 5.7 million laying hens produce 1.8 billion eggs per year. We also represent the interests of 108 replacement chicken producers and six egg producers who work for the vaccine sector, that is to say a pharmaceutical company that is involved in protecting Canadians' health.

Right now, all the federal parties and witnesses are saying that they support supply management, but for different reasons. On the one side, we have MPs that support Bill C‑282 to protect supply management production from any more concessions of our market shares to foreign producers. These MPs know that the advantages for Canadian consumers and citizens are better than what we could hope to gain during the negotiation of any future trade deals.

On the other side, when we look at the testimony provided by witnesses at previous meetings, we see that for others, the supply management system is just a trade currency that is used by Canadian negotiators. Indeed, we get the message that those MPs believe in supply management, because the protected markets are useful aces in the hole that Canadian negotiators can use to deal with foreign negotiators over domestic market shares.

You have heard previous witnesses state that without this ace up their sleeves, Canadian negotiators would be sitting ducks at negotiations. That is basically saying that Canadian negotiators have nothing to bargain with, contrary to their foreign counterparts, and would not be able to gain any concessions without this ace. It makes us wonder what negotiators from other countries do when they don't have supply managed markets.

I would remind you that it is possible to hammer out trade deals without sacrificing supply‑managed production. Canada has signed 12 trade agreements since 1997 and has negotiated with 15 countries, without giving any access to its domestic markets. Why do Canadian negotiators feel such a need to trade our protected markets whereas American and Japanese negotiators are able to make gains without putting their rice, sugar and cotton markets on the negotiating table?

During your committee meetings, witnesses and MPs have been unable to provide statistics on Canada's revenue and exports volumes after conceding market shares to foreign exporters. Supply management producers can provide figures for their losses, and Canadian taxpayers can say how much they have had to pay to compensate for the concessions made.

If Bill C‑282 had been passed at the beginning of this century, we would have never conceded our market shares. Bill C‑282 is a necessary tool to protect Canadian citizens and consumers and a system that everyone benefits from. Voting against Bill C‑282 is voting for individual interests as opposed to collective ones and sacrificing our production during the next round of negotiations.

Madam Chair, everything has been said during the meetings held on Bills C-216and C‑282. Quebec's egg producers are asking parliamentarians—

[Troy Sherman, Director, Government Relations, Canola Council of Canada]

Thank you, Chair Sgro and members of the committee.

My name is Troy Sherman, and I am the director of government relations for the Canola Council of Canada. The council encompasses all links in the canola value chain. Our members include canola growers, life science companies, grain handlers, exporters, processors and others. Our shared goal is ensuring the industry's continued growth and success, and doing so by meeting global demand for canola and canola-based products, which include food, feed and fuel.

Canola's success is Canada's success. Our industry represents almost $30 billion in economic activity, annually, 207,000 jobs across the country, $12 billion in wages and the largest share of farm cash receipts in the country. With over 90% of Canadian canola exported to as many as 50 different markets, the canola industry depends on ambitious and fair science- and rules-based trade.

For many years, we have worked with Canada's trade negotiators to make sure Canada and Canadian canola are well positioned to help feed the world. Central to these trade negotiations is the foundational principle that negotiators should be empowered to reach the best agreements for Canadians and the Canadian economy. Negotiators have been able to achieve this by availing themselves of all the tools in our trade-negotiating tool box, working closely with industry, academics and civil society to ensure Canada's trade agreements achieve what is in our national interest.

Bill C-282 risks undermining Canada's reputation as a trading nation and, consequently, our national interest during trade negotiations. It does this in a number of ways, including putting in place legislative prohibitions on what our negotiators can discuss at the negotiation table and diminishing Canada's desirability as a market with which to pursue trade agreements.

On the first point, Bill C-282 proposes prohibiting what Canada's trade negotiators can discuss at the negotiation table. To the best of our knowledge, and as noted by officials at Global Affairs Canada, no other country legislatively prohibits negotiators from discussing certain topics during trade negotiations. Canada would be an outlier, and needlessly so.

In June 2021, an official from Global Affairs appeared before this very committee on Bill C-216, Bill C-282's predecessor. At the time, they stated the following: “Canada has been able to successfully conclude 15 trade agreements that cover 51 countries while preserving Canada's supply management system”. The official went on to say:

If we were to start from the position that we would not be dealing with 100% of the items that we would negotiate on, it does risk having an agreement that's not necessarily completely beneficial to Canadian exporters and producers and it does risk being an agreement that does not necessarily provide the full economic benefits to Canada that one might have expected.

What was true when it was said two years ago remains true today. Bill C-282 is a solution in search of a problem, and it risks undermining other industries and sectors of the economy, including Canadian canola. Passing Bill C-282 will set a dangerous precedent for additional amendments to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, to either protect certain industries or mandate restrictive language in trade agreements in specific areas of interest.

Regarding the second challenge mentioned, Bill C-282 will significantly diminish Canada's desirability as a country with which to pursue trade negotiations. By legislating that our negotiators are not able to include supply management as part of the negotiations, Canada is significantly shrinking the trade prospect pie and potentially forcing Canadian concessions in other areas of interest. If Canada is viewed as an obstacle for new entrants to plurilateral agreements, or less attractive to engage with—given our legislated red line on supply management—our trading partners may question the value of having Canada at the negotiation table.

To conclude, Bill C-282 represents a significant departure from Canada's principled, fair and rules-based free trade posture. No industry, sector or issue should be off the table during trade negotiations. Our trade negotiators have delivered tangible results and benefits for the Canadian economy and industries, including canola.

[Ian McFall, Chair of the Board of Directors, Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council]

Thank you, Ms. Chair.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee.

My name is Ian McFall, and I chair the board of directors of the Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council. While I’m here as the chair of CPEPC, I’m also the executive vice-president and family shareholder at Burnbrae Farms, a family-owned company with egg grading, processing and farming operations in five provinces across Canada.

I’m joined here today by our association’s president and CEO, Jean-Michel Laurin.

CPEPC represents Canadian hatcheries, egg graders and processors, chicken and turkey processors, and further processors. While our members are not supply-managed, you can see us as representing Canadian poultry and egg farmers’ main customers. Collectively, our membership represents more than 180 establishments of all sizes, and processes over 90% of the poultry and egg products raised by Canadian farmers.

Our association strongly supports Canada’s supply management system and international trade policies that are consistent with the system. We believe Bill C-282 is consistent with that system.

The poultry and egg supply chain that we represent, the people we employ and the communities we touch depend on ensuring that we have a strong supply management system in Canada. The market access granted for poultry and egg products through CPTPP and CUSMA, in addition to the existing market access through WTO, will have an impact on supply-managed producers and processors. It is worth noting that our industry is still adjusting to the escalating impact of these agreements. For instance, in the case of CPTPP, Chile just ratified the agreement. It also just banned poultry exports due to avian influenza.

For these agreements, it is worth noting that the government is providing financial compensation to supply-managed sectors. In the case of poultry and egg processors, the government is contributing to plant investments through the supply management processing investment fund. This fund will provide, on average, $17 million per year over six years to poultry and egg processors looking to increase their productivity and improve their competitiveness. This fund is in high demand. After being in place for almost a full year, it is now clear that it will benefit only some processors given the high volume of demand for this fund. It is also worth noting that the funding allocated under this fund represents a fraction of the expected impact of the trade agreements.

Bill C-282 is tied to Canada’s import controls regime. This is one of the three pillars that are key to upholding the supply management system. We acknowledge that some have concerns with the bill. Trade agreements are critical to non-supply managed commodities. We believe Canada can protect its supply-managed sectors while successfully negotiating trade deals that benefit Canadians. It is also our understanding that it is not the intent of the bill to restrict Canada’s ability to negotiate new agreements.

Access to imports in controlled and limited volumes for our members is also critical to supply-managed sectors. It is our understanding that Bill C-282 will not change the market access already granted to trading partners under current agreements or impact other trade legislation.

In closing, CPEPC believes this bill is consistent with Canada’s supply management system, a system that we strongly support.

We thank you for your time and would be pleased to answer your questions.

[Tim Klompmaker]

Bill C-282 will give people the confidence to invest in farms. It'll give the confidence for them to start up smaller farms. Certainly, with smaller farms, we do have the advantage of.... With supply management, we have very rigorous food safety and animal care programs. That goes across all of our farms, so it does maintain those small family farms.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

With the implementation of Bill C-282, will it adequately address the concerns and needs of small-scale chicken farmers across Canada?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us today and I also want to apologize for our tardiness. When we have votes, it's never easy for our witnesses.

Mr. Ruel, do you think Bill C‑282 is necessary or is compensation enough?

[Joe Dal Ferro, Chair, International Cheese Council of Canada]

Good afternoon. My name is Joe Dal Ferro, and I'm the chair of the International Cheese Council of Canada. I am joined by Helen Dallimore, representing one of our associate members, Coombe Castle.

The ICCC was founded in 1976. We are an association of small and medium-sized cheese importers and their suppliers. Our members are Canadian-based importers of cheese. Our associate members include cheese producers and processors from various countries that have international trade agreements with Canada.

The ICCC has coexisted with Canada’s supply-managed dairy sector for over four decades and accepts the rationale underlying Canada’s supply management system. We are not advocating for its dismantling. Rather, we are continuing to work with the government to ensure that its TRQ allocation and administration system respects our trade commitments in the dairy sector. Moreover, many of our members, including my company, are proud to be distributors of domestic cheeses across all over Canada.

I am here today to offer the committee several compelling reasons why Bill C-282 should not be supported by parliamentarians.

First, parliamentarians must seriously consider the significant negative financial impacts that this bill will have on the many Canadian small to medium-sized businesses that import cheese. The future for Canadian importers of cheese is already uncertain. This bill is only adding to the unpredictability. The unknown outcome of Global Affairs' TRQ phase II review—which initially started in 2019—is creating ambiguity and inhibiting business planning. Moreover, it may require importers to significantly change their business methods and model if the new quota policy is unfavourable to our industry.

If Bill C-282 becomes law, it risks obstructing even the possibility of addressing the market access requested by the U.K. as part of the ongoing bilateral negotiations. If the U.K. is forced to settle for a portion of the WTO non-EU quota, Canadian importers will be limited to exclusively using this method of access to import British cheeses. This pool is already fully utilized with cheeses from the U.S., New Zealand, Switzerland and Norway, among others. Otherwise, they will find themselves faced with three options, all of which will result in financial harm to Canadian businesses.

These are the three unappealing options. The first is ceasing to import U.K. cheese products altogether in Canada, meaning that many Canadians’ beloved British cheeses could be gone forever. The second is substituting some of their imports from other non-EU countries with imports from the U.K., ensuring a shortage of available cheeses from multiple jurisdictions. The third is importing U.K. cheese with the prohibitive 245% tariff. This would nearly triple the cost of certain cheeses already on the market and make them unaffordable to all but the richest of Canadians. In this era of rising inflation, parliamentarians don’t want to forcibly make imported cheeses an even more expensive proposition.

All of these unfortunate scenarios unfairly penalize Canadian businesses, despite the increasing demand by Canadians for British cheeses. Businesses' ability to meet this demand at an affordable price will be severely constrained if this bill passes. Not only will these Canadian businesses be prevented from generating market growth, but they will almost certainly lose business, which will mean job losses in Canada.

Let me be clear. The CPTPP is not a solution for Canadian importers of British cheeses.

Based on these facts, we are also concerned that Bill C-282 could have a dramatic impact on our trade relationships. Our trade allies have shown increasing dissatisfaction with the administration of Canada’s dairy TRQs—so much so that two of our trade partners have already launched trade disputes, alleging that Canada is failing to respect its existing trade agreements.

For these reasons, the ICCC respectfully urges members of this committee to consider the consequences of this bill and to vote against Bill C-282.

Thank you.

[Tim Klompmaker, Chair, Chicken Farmers of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Tim Klompmaker. I'm a chicken farmer from Norwood, Ontario, and chair of Chicken Farmers of Canada. Supply management is the reason why I am a farmer. My parents took over the farm from my grandparents in 1972, and supply management was the reason why they encouraged me to purchase my own farm in 1984.

My wife and I raised three sons, who are now also chicken farmers thanks to supply management. It is a uniquely Canadian system that supports generations of farmers and feeds millions of Canadians. We're all here to talk about the same thing. Whether we're government officials or members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture or other farm groups, we're all worried about the same thing: How do we continue to provide safe, high-quality food to feed people? We're all unified in the fact that farmers feed Canadians and the world. We require the tools and support to continue doing so in our own unique ways.

Bill C-282 is welcomed by Chicken Farmers of Canada. It would ensure the Government of Canada grants no further concessions in the supply management sectors in any future trade deal. We cannot afford to lose part of our market with every trade agreement. The Chicken Farmers of Canada board of directors, comprising farmers, processors, further processors and members of the food service sector, carefully determines how much chicken Canada needs for the coming months, and farmers from coast to coast produce that amount. It also considers how much is coming from imports, making it predictable and reliable. Any additional access granted undermines the import control pillar of the system, meaning it can't function as intended.

I can't stress this enough: If supply management is weakened, the Canadian chicken sector cannot guarantee safe, local chicken raised with care for Canadians, threatening food security in all 10 of the provinces in which we operate. Supply management allows our sector to enforce mandatory, audited food safety and animal care programs under the “raised by a Canadian farmer” brand. These enforcement measures are of particular importance during outbreaks of animal diseases like avian influenza, as we are seeing now. Guaranteed food safety and animal care programs are some of the many reasons why supply management works.

With headlines stating that food security is at risk due to weather events, disease and global conflict, the last thing we want is for consumers to fear there will be no food to feed their families. A supply-managed farmer's job, first and foremost, is providing food for Canadians. Every time Canada enters trade negotiations, this ability to provide is at risk. Trade is important to our country, but it should not harm supply management, particularly given that Canadian chicken production is only 1.3% of world chicken production.

Recently, the CPTPP and CUSMA trade agreements have significantly impacted Canadian chicken farmers. We have never stood in the way of Canada achieving a fair deal. Our sector provides stability at home, while sectors with greater export potential can pursue opportunities in international markets. We also note that most countries have sensitive sectors they wish to protect. For example, New Zealand has strict biosecurity laws that impose extreme cooking requirements on imported poultry products.

By adopting legislation that ensures no further access to supply management is granted in any future trade agreement, parliamentarians will show Canada's dairy, poultry and egg farmers that they stand by them, just as we have always been there for Canadians.

Supporting this bill is not bad trade policy. It is good domestic policy. Supply management means looking out for Canadians.

[Roger Chevraux, Chair, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thank you for the opportunity for the Canadian Canola Growers Association to appear on your study of Bill C-282. We appear in opposition of the bill.

I am joining today from Killam, Alberta, where our family farm, Century 12 Farms, grows cereals and oilseeds. I also serve as the chair of both Alberta Canola and the Canadian Canola Growers Association, known as the CCGA. I'm joined by Rick White, CCGA's president and CEO, who's based in Winnipeg.

I mentioned the name of my farm because it tells you about our family farm. My great-grandfather started farming on the land in 1912, which makes ours one of the oldest farms in our region of the Prairies. This makes me a fourth-generation farmer and makes my 27-year-old son a fifth-generation farmer.

CCGA represents Canada's 43,000 Canadian farmers on issues that impact their success. Canola is the number one revenue source, earning Canadian farmers $13.8 billion in revenue in 2022. That's more than cereals, horticulture and livestock, including dairy and poultry. It contributes roughly $30 billion in annual economic activity and creates over 200,000 jobs nationally.

Canola's success and its contribution to our economy is based on innovation, international trade and the series of free trade agreements successfully concluded by the government. As the world's largest producer and exporter of canola, Canada represents 90% of what we grow as seed, oil and meal, which were valued at $14.4 billion in 2022.

Free trade agreements eliminate barriers and provide clear rules of trade, providing predictability and stability and reducing market risks. For example, the North American Free Trade Agreement, now the CUSMA, spurred development of the Canadian canola sector in growing acres, attracting value-added activities and generating the innovation needed to grow a sustainable crop and to be partners in Canada's climate change commitments. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership diversified market opportunities for oil and meal, keeping the processing at home and generating a multiplier effect in rural areas as well as urban centres.

I want to state up front that I am not opposed to supply management or to the concept of protecting it. However, I am opposed to this bill because it is a bad policy that is not necessary, I believe, to protect our supply management system.

Bill C-282 is bad policy on many fronts.

First, if passed, Canada's attractiveness as a free trade agreement partner would diminish, which would adversely affect Canada's ability to launch and enter into new negotiations. Canada's leverage in successfully renewing the CUSMA under President Trump or in negotiating a membership to and conclusion of the CPTPP agreement would have been greatly diminished if such a bill were in place.

Second, the bill would constrain negotiators' ability to seek the best and most ambitious deal for Canada as a whole. According to the department's website, Canada is negotiating bilateral or regional FTAs with a dozen partners, as well as advancing World Trade Organization modernization and renewal of the Agreement on Agriculture. Robust negotiating strategies, flexibility and compromise are required to achieve successful conclusions. This fact was acknowledged during the department's testimony on February 16 regarding the CUSMA.

Third, the bill creates a dangerous precedent that invites our trade partners to also seek exclusions and undermines Canada's reputation globally. CCGA supports ongoing government efforts to diversify our exports and strengthen free trade worldwide. This bill contradicts those efforts and sends a strong protectionist signal globally at a time where it has never been more important to avoid new trade barriers and to discourage trade and/or access to food.

Canada needs a new agriculture trade strategy where FTAs are a central trade policy tool. The Indo-Pacific strategy commits $2.3 billion over the next five years to expand our political, economic and security relationships with the Indo-Pacific region, including through FTAs with Association of Southeast Asian Nations, India and Indonesia. Countries that are developing their—

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting 54 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I need to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. With regard to interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

All comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we thank you for your patience and understanding. Please also note that, during the meeting, it is not permitted to to take pictures in the room or screenshots on Zoom.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning technical tests for witnesses, I have been informed that all witnesses have completed the required tests. Should any technical challenges arise, please let us know. We will suspend the meeting momentarily to ensure translation.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 8, the committee is resuming the study of Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act regarding supply management.

We have with us today for the first panel, from the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Rick White, president and chief executive officer, and Roger Chevraux by video conference. From the Chicken Farmers of Canada, we have Yves Ruel, associate executive director, and Tim Klompmaker, chair. From the International Cheese Council of Canada, we have Joe Dal Ferro, chair, and Helen Dallimore, associate member.

My apologies to all of you for the delay, but Parliament has to function and the votes have to happen.

We're going to ask you all to keep your remarks as brief as you can, up to four minutes each.

We will start with Mr. Chevraux, please.

Go ahead.

International Trade

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, building on my friend's intervention, I will take the occasion today to wish all Ismaili Canadians a very happy Navroz Mubarak, the start of the new year and the first day of spring.

I appreciate the speech given by my colleague who sits on the Standing Committee on International Trade with me and who, as I mentioned, was with me in Paris.

First, I want to point out that the only difference between Bill S‑211 and Bill C‑282 from the Bloc Québécois is their place on the Order Paper. There is a chronological order to be followed.

Next, I agree entirely that the regulations, directives and strategies established by the House and the government must apply to every company and every institution, particularly Export Development Canada.

I would like to ask a question about something that was raised in Canada's strategy for responsible business conduct abroad. I am quoting from the document:

The July 2020 amendment to the Customs Tariff prohibits the importation of goods that are mined, manufactured or produced wholly or in part by forced labour.... Furthermore, the government is committed to enacting legislation to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and ensure that Canadian businesses operating abroad do not contribute to human rights abuses.

[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.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Pelissero, what amazes me is hearing several elected officials being in favour of supply management, but not wanting to put it on paper. I'll give a silly example: when you buy a house, you sign an offer to purchase.

I'd like you to explain why Bill C‑282 is important to your productions. Why do you need it? What would be the impact of the bill if a government later decides to put supply management back on the table?

[Keith Currie]

There's been a lot of focus on.... Obviously, the intent of the bill is to protect supply management. A part of this has to be improving the conversation, as I mentioned earlier, around non-trade barriers. Going forward, hopefully the enactment of Bill C-282 will impel our negotiators and trade officials to make sure that those non-trade barriers aren't in the way of successful trading between countries. We really need to make sure that this happens as well, along with the protection of the supply-managed commodities.