Bill S-211

Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act

An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff

This enactment enacts the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act , which imposes an obligation on certain government institutions and private-sector entities to report on the measures taken to prevent and reduce the risk that forced labour or child labour is used by them or in their supply chains. The Act provides for an inspection regime applicable to entities and gives the Minister the power to require an entity to provide certain information.
This enactment also amends the Customs Tariff to allow for aprohibition on the importation of goods manufactured or produced,in whole or in part, by forced labour or child labour as those terms are defined in the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act .

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

May 10, 2023

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the schedule to this letter on the 10th day of May, 2023, at 4:59 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Maia Welbourne

Assistant Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates that the bills assented to on Wednesday, May 10, 2023, were Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff—Chapter No. 9, 2023; Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada—Chapter No. 10, 2023; and Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Income Tax Act—Chapter No. 11, 2023.

[Dr. Ari Van Assche, Full Professor, HEC Montréal, As an Individual]

Good evening Mr. Chair and committee members. It's a pleasure to participate in this meeting, and I would like to thank you for inviting me.

I'll be speaking here as an academic, and not as an investor.

My opening remarks will draw on my research on extended supply chain responsibility, which studies the efforts by governments and other stakeholders to increase the responsibility of lead firms for corporate misconduct that occurs in their global supply chains.

The central point I will make is that ending forced labour in global supply chains requires Canadian and Chinese companies to develop sophisticated new organizational capabilities that they currently lack. Creating these capabilities requires important structural changes that should not be ignored in the debates on extended supply chain responsibility policies. It also has implications for our discussions on the investments.

Forced labour continues to be an endemic issue in global supply chains. The committee has already heard testimony that large amounts of goods sold on Canadian markets are made with forced labour originating in, among other places, China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. You have also heard testimony about the investment of Canadian pension funds in Chinese companies that have been blacklisted by the United States for their complicity in human rights violations.

Recognizing these concerns, the Canadian government has followed the leads of several other western countries and introduced legal frameworks designed to encourage corporations to take responsibility for tackling forced labour in global supply chains and even holding them legally liable for human rights violations.

This includes Bill S-211, which was passed last week. It requires companies to report on the policies they've implemented to reduce the risks of forced and child labour in the supply chains of Canadian firms. Currently there are other bills under discussion that would require companies to adopt mandatory corporate sustainability due diligence.

The young age of these extended supply chain responsibility policies in Canada and elsewhere implies that we still have limited information about their effectiveness. My own research on private governance programs suggests policies that impose a high supply chain liability on Canadian companies will compel critical structural changes in their supply chain models that are costly and require time to be developed.

Academic research on voluntary private governance programs highlights that it is difficult for well-intended companies to rule out labour violations throughout their global supply chains. In private governance programs, lead firms—big firms—generally impose supplier codes of conduct on their tier 1 suppliers that identify the ESG standards to which they need to adhere and explain the penalty for non-compliance. They next use social auditing to verify suppliers’ compliance to these standards and impose penalties if violations are uncovered. To ensure the standards cascade down to lower-tier suppliers, lead firms require their tier 1 suppliers to use the same private governance mechanisms on lower-tier suppliers, and this goes on and on.

Evidence shows that private governance programs work relatively well for detecting and dealing with labour violations among tier 1 suppliers with whom lead firms have long-standing contractual relationships. However, they fail to make a real change among lower-tier suppliers with whom lead firms have no direct contractual relation; these are often difficult to monitor by lead firms and sometimes even unknown to lead firms. It is unfortunately in these lower tiers of global supply chains that most human rights abuses happen.

Developing lead-firm interventions that can prevent labour violations in lower-tier suppliers is complicated and remains under-studied. However, what is known is that it requires lead firms to develop new capabilities that enable them to improve transparency, traceability, inclusiveness and, ultimately, control throughout global supply chains. This includes the development of supply chain mapping capabilities to improve their awareness of who is involved in their supply chains and where labour violations are most likely to sprout. It also includes the capability of supporting tier 1 suppliers to improve their monitoring of labour conditions among sub-suppliers and acting upon violations.

It also includes a capability of building new partnerships with NGOs and competitors to develop best practices on detecting and tackling forced labour—

The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion that Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the third time and passed.

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.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to acknowledge that this debate is taking place on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

I want to begin by stating that the government will be supporting the bill.

The Minister of Labour has a mandate to introduce government legislation that will eradicate forced labour in our supply chains. This was also part of a platform promise in our last election. In budget 2023, we committed to introducing that legislation by the end of next year. The government's priority is to pass the most effective legislation possible. Bill S-211 represents an important first step, and through government legislation, we will seek not only to improve upon it, but to go further.

How prevalent is this problem? The latest numbers from the International Labour Organization estimate that there are over 27 million victims of forced labour worldwide. This number has increased by 2.7 million people since 2016, in part due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we have strong indication that this number still likely underestimates the pandemic's full effects on forced labour. In addition, global estimates indicate that at the beginning of 2020 there were approximately 160 million children who were victims of child labour, including forced child labour, and this number, too, is expected to rise, given increased poverty driven by the pandemic.

These types of practices are deplorable, and our government strongly condemns the use of forced labour and all forms of exploitation in the production of goods.

This issue has garnered attention on a global scale. In fact, many countries have introduced or announced measures to address labour exploitation in supply chains, including different forms of supply chain legislation. Others have import prohibitions on goods produced using forced labour, such as the U.S., Canada and, soon, Mexico. The European Union is considering a regulatory proposal on prohibiting forced labour goods from its market as well.

Fighting forced labour and child labour is a complex problem that demands a comprehensive solution. Supply chains are becoming increasingly multi-faceted, with multiple tiers that could involve a parent company, a subsidiary company, suppliers and subcontractors spread across the world. This makes it difficult to pinpoint at which stage forced labour, child labour or other forms of exploitation may occur.

Despite this, our government is taking action. Over the past few years, the government has introduced a number of initiatives to help tackle labour exploitation in global supply chains. For example, when it comes to negotiating trade agreements with other countries, we include comprehensive and enforceable labour provisions to protect workers, and we help uphold those protections, including by providing assistance to partner countries in meeting these obligations. For example, we are providing funding through World Vision Canada to increase protections against child and forced labour in several agricultural sectors in Mexico.

In addition, in July 2020, we included a ban in the Customs Tariff to prohibit the importation into Canada of goods that are mined, manufactured or produced by forced labour. This is a relatively novel mechanism to address the issue, with the United States being the only other country with such a ban in place, which has evolved over the last 90 years. Departments are in regular contact with American counterparts to learn from the expertise they have built up over decades.

We have also taken steps toward strengthening federal procurement. Its entire contracting regime has changed, including updating the government's code of conduct for procurement to include clear expectations for suppliers and their subcontractors when it comes to human and labour rights.

In 2022, our government introduced a new responsible business conduct strategy. The strategy focuses on ways to build awareness and increase company-led due diligence and accountability. We know that government action alone is not enough. We need all hands on deck: government, industry and civil society.

As I have mentioned, the COVID-19 pandemic has widened social inequalities and increased the risk of fundamental labour and other human rights violations for the most vulnerable around the world. If we want to make Canadian supply chains more resilient and sustainable for years to come, we must eliminate forced labour and employ a range of measures to address exploitation in supply chains.

This is a priority for the government and a key mandate commitment for the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Public Safety, as well as the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development.

While labour exploitation is a global problem, we must also take an approach that fits the Canadian context. In 2019, the government held extensive consultations on this issue with more than 55 stakeholders in Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver. We also held online consultations and garnered more than 100 responses.

Last spring, the Government of Canada released a report entitled, “Labour Exploitation in Global Supply Chains: What We Heard Report”. This report captures everything our stakeholders shared through those consultations. They told us loud and clear that labour exploitation, including forced labour, is unacceptable and that the Government of Canada should take further action to address it.

Since then, our government has continued to engage with numerous stakeholders on the issue of forced labour in supply chains, including civil society organizations, advocacy groups, industry, foreign governments and international organizations. In recognition of what we heard from stakeholders and international developments on this issue, we have been gathering information on global best practices from international partners and organizations, including further input received from stakeholders on key elements that often form part of supply chain legislation.

These include the scope of potential legislation, the type of requirements that should be imposed on businesses, the entities that should be captured by the legislation and other potential flexibilities that could be considered, the approach to enforcement and governance, as well as non-legislative tools and other measures that are needed to support entities in meeting their obligations under supply chain legislation.

There is no doubt that the sponsor of this bill has done a tremendous amount of work and has worked on this for many years. Many members from many parties have also undertaken this work. I also want to thank those in the other place for the work they have done, including the other sponsor of this bill. This is an extremely important issue, and for that we continue to applaud the tireless efforts of our esteemed colleagues.

We must act, but also, as has been said in this chamber, legislation cannot just be words on paper. The legislative framework needs to be on strong legal and operational footings.

It should be in line with the latest approaches being undertaken by like-minded countries, with whom we must collaborate to end this scourge. We need to equip businesses and other regulated parties to comply, and ensure that expertise and capacity exist for the regulator to monitor and enforce, so the legislation has the desired impact, and so it is a strong legislative framework that will be effectively enforced.

Ultimately, while this is a complex endeavour, we are committed to doing this work, and we will get it done. In closing, I want to once more make it clear that forced labour is unacceptable in Canada or any place in this world. This bill represents an important first step, but it will not be the last one.

Working with parliamentarians, industry and civil society, the government has committed to developing and introducing legislation that will go further. Everyone has the same goal here, which is eradicating forced labour from Canada's supply chains.

The Government of Canada is committed to that work, and to employing a range of measures so that Canadian businesses do not contribute to this or other forms of human rights abuses.

We will do everything in our power to ensure that goods coming into the country, our stores and our homes, and that the practices companies are engaging in abroad, are free from the stain of forced labour.

[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—

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill S-211, the fighting against forced labour and child labour in supply chains act.

I want to share a story from the International Justice Mission about the real impact of forced labour and slavery.

“Like most ten-year-old boys, Suriya was a dreamer. If you asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up, his answer might change depending on the day. A famous singer, an artist, a policeman, a pilot, a cricket player.”

One day, a cyclone hit southern India and destroyed Suriya's village. Suriya, his mother and his siblings all survived, but his father did not. Due to their desperate situation, Suriya's mother was pressured into taking a loan from a neighbouring farmer that required Suriya to work for the farmer.

“At only ten years old, Suriya's dreams, childhood and freedom were taken. Instead of the loving embrace of his mother, Suriya was beaten repeatedly with a stick. Instead of walking to school in the morning, he was forced to herd over 200 goats alone for miles.”

Thanks to the partnership of a local organization in India, IJM was able to find Suriya, bring him home safely and “fight for justice against the man who exploited his family.”

While Suriya was freed, millions more men, women and children remain in slavery today. In fact, it is estimated that today there are over 50 million people in slavery.

That is why this issue is so important, and I am glad we are debating Bill S-211 here today. As one of the co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, it has been my honour to help advance this bill and work across party lines with my colleagues.

I want to thank in particular the sponsor in the House of this bill, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, who has relentlessly championed this issue for years in this place, and our colleague Senator Miville-Dechêne, who brilliantly steered it through the Senate. I thank both other co-chairs of the APPG, along with the member for Shefford, and their offices for all they have done. I also want to recognize the hard work of their staff, people like Shawn Boyle, Jérôme Lussier and Joel Oosterman, who have been integral to assisting us with getting this bill done.

The APPG has been doing great work over the last few years, and I just want to take the opportunity to let members know that our AGM is coming up on May 8. We welcome anyone else who wants to join the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking at the AGM. Come and join us to strengthen Canada's efforts to combat human trafficking.

Human trafficking and modern-day slavery turn people into objects to be used and exploited. It is a vicious, growing and profitable crime here in Canada and around the world.

Earlier this spring, the York Regional Police announced that 64 men and women from Mexico were trafficked to work here in Ontario. I want to thank the officers for their hard work to apprehend the traffickers and rescue the victims. This vicious crime robs people of their God-given dignity and freedom. Over the past few years, due to the pandemic, the estimated number of people enslaved or trafficked has risen from 40 million to over 50 million.

These people are harvesting our coffee or the sugar we eat or making the clothes we wear, and while we finally will be updating our laws to prohibit imports made from slavery, our enforcement to this point has been terrible. In fiscal year 2021-22, the U.S. intercepted 2,300 shipments suspected of being tied to forced labour or slavery. Canada intercepted one, and that shipment was ultimately appealed and let through.

Canada does not yet require any companies to ensure their supply chains are free of slavery. That is why Bill S-211 is so important. This bill would require federal departments and large companies that do business in Canada to produce an annual report detailing the measures taken to prevent or mitigate the risks of forced labour or child labour in their supply chains. These reports would be made public, and there would be penalties for making false or misleading statements.

It is not necessary to get too much into the details of the bill at this stage. The bill has already gone through the Senate stages and has been at committee. In this House, it has gone through second reading and committee study, and we do not have to debate the bill to pass it. We know how long it takes for the government to simply implement legislation. With any further debate, this bill will be delayed, as will the ability for Canada to increase transparency and help stop slavery in our supply chains.

I want to draw members' attention to the former British member of Parliament and abolitionist William Wilberforce, who, motivated by his Christian faith, spent decades fighting against the transatlantic slave trade, every year reintroducing a bill to end it, only to see the bill defeated or delayed. He was eventually successful, but often impeding his efforts were the attempts by other MPs to change or amend the bill, or calls to delay or take a different approach. Those delays resulted in prolonged suffering and enslavement of countless Africans. That is why it is deeply disappointing to see that there are parties in the House who plan to vote against this bill. That is shocking. These parties make up similar excuses to those of Wilberforce's opponents as to why they cannot support the bill.

No one is suggesting this bill is the only step Canada needs to take, but it is an important step nonetheless. There are other approaches we can and must take. For example, Canada should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to modern-day slavery and human trafficking.

Three weeks ago, I was in Winnipeg at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, and we brought together survivors and leaders in the fight against human trafficking. The symposium was organized by Paul Brandt and #NotInMyCity, the Rotary Action Group Against Slavery, the Mekong Club and the International Justice Mission. The focus of that conference was to galvanize support for “The Canada Declaration”, a document that outlines the reality of humanity trafficking in our country and around the world, and looks for Canada to take a zero-tolerance approach that was informed by the voices of survivors. The co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking had the honour of addressing the leaders in that room, and we are committed to bringing this declaration back to Parliament and urging our colleagues in the government to implement these calls to action.

Part of the declaration states:

We acknowledge that reconciliation with indigenous peoples requires Canada to take a concerted effort to end the factors that lead to the their over-representation as Victims of Human Trafficking.

We also recognize the resilience and courage of Survivors who have spoken out and raised their voices and lament that far too often, their voices have not been centered or heard....

We recognize that the maintenance of freedom requires diligence and sacrifice.

We recognize that Human Trafficking is a multi-faceted crime and requires a comprehensive, holistic and country wide effort to fight it on every front....

That is why we are calling on the Government of Canada and all Canadians to adopt a Zero Tolerance approach to end Human Trafficking.

One of the calls to action in “The Canada Declaration” is for Canada to implement robust measures that require supply chain reporting of Canadian companies. That is what this bill would do. It would help Canada move forward to a zero-tolerance approach, and that is why I believe that this bill should not be delayed any further. If it is in our power to help end slavery and bring freedom to men, women and children around the globe by passing this bill, why would we delay its adoption one moment longer?

Just yesterday, all members of Parliament received a letter from Peter Talibart, a Canadian and an international employment lawyer based in the U.K. Peter appealed to parliamentarians to adopt Bill S-211 and pointed to its strengths as it compares to existing international approaches. For example, unlike the U.K. and Australian laws, Bill S-211 proposes serious penalties, including fines and direct criminal liability. In fact, those countries are looking to adopt an approach that is reflected in this bill.

Peter ends his letter by saying that we know more about the wood in our chair, the coffee in our cup and the tobacco we smoke than we do about the welfare of the millions of men, women and children that produced them, and that that is wrong.

I urge all members to support the immediate adoption of Bill S-211.

Again, I want to thank the MP for Scarborough—Guildwood, our colleagues in the Senate and all who have worked so hard to get this bill to where it is today.

I want to leave members with the words of William Wilberforce as he challenged his parliamentary colleagues to action over 200 years ago. He said, “Having heard all this you may choose to look the other way but you can never again say that you did not know.”

The House resumed from March 6 consideration of the motion that Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the third time and passed.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I want to thank the honourable member for that important question. In my earlier responses I talked about the importance of what mining will need to be for Canada in developing the green economy, ensuring that it's done in a sustainable way but also in a way that leads with Canadian values. Standing up for human rights and ensuring that communities are protected are also a part of that.

We work closely, of course, with Sheri Meyerhoffer in her role as CORE. I'm pleased that she has set up the office, has started and is doing that work and that work is progressing well in terms of fulfilling her mandate and taking on cases. I'm paying particular attention to the work that is being done here at this committee and the many witnesses who are coming forward with respect to this issue. I'm also taking a look at the work being done at the foreign affairs committee when it studied Senate Bill S-211. There is a lot of work that is being done.

We are going to have to take into account these various issues, as they come forward, in our thinking of the future. At the very heart of what we must do, Canadians must lead with the values that shore us up to be good responsible corporate citizens. I expect that of Canadian companies, and we have updated our rules to ensure that is the case.

I do applaud the mining association for its leadership, like I said, now working with 12 countries that have come on board on a way forward for the industry in terms of how it can do its work in a sustainable and responsible way.

However, I'm paying particular attention to this work that parliamentarians and civil society are doing. We will obviously take these into account as we are thinking about the future work of the CORE.

Senate Amendments to Bill C-11

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order this morning respecting the government's Motion No. 2 concerning the Senate amendments to Bill C-11.

In my view, the notice of motion engages the rule of anticipation and cannot be proposed to the House later today.

Normally such a point of order should be raised when the motion is actually proposed to the House, but given that it is listed on the Projected Order of Business for consideration in an hour's time, the complexity of the issues involved and as a courtesy to you to find some time to prepare a ruling, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise as soon as the House opened this morning.

On March 8 and March 9, the House considered a government motion concerning the Senate's amendments, a motion which is now referred to as Motion No. 1 on the Notice Paper, to which my colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge, has moved an amendment.

Flash forward to Friday evening, when today's Notice Paper was published, we see this new motion, Motion No. 2, from the Liberal government. They are both very long motions, so I will spare the Speaker and the House from hearing them each read out loud.

Suffice it to say, I studied them very closely to see what might be different between them. Lo and behold, the English versions of the motions are absolutely identical. When one refers to the French versions, one spots the difference, which is a single instance of a “1” and a “2”, in Roman numerals, being transposed. That is it.

Let me explain for the House briefly what that means. The Liberal government made a drafting mistake; it got its motion wrong. Now it wants a do-over. If one is a golfer, one might call it a mulligan. All this is on a policy Liberals are mistakenly pursuing on a bill they keep botching and on amendments they keep flubbing, and now a motion they cannot even get right, and those people want to control the Internet.

Setting that aside, I will get back to the procedural concern. The substantive effect of these two motions is identical. Indeed, the text in one official language is identical. The words used in the other official language are all the same. It is just two numbers that are transposed.

Having established these motions are, for all intents and purposes, identical, let me refer to page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which explains the rule of anticipation. It reads:

According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding (for example, a bill or any other Order of the Day is more effective than a motion, which in turn has priority over an amendment, which in turn is more effective than a written or oral question). If such a motion were allowed, it could indeed forestall or block a decision from being taken on the matter already on the Order Paper.

It goes on to say:

The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), the second may be proceeded with.... A point of order regarding anticipation may be raised when the second motion is proposed from the Chair, if the first has already been proposed to the House and has become an Order of the Day.

Though the government House leader might argue that questions about this rule do not come up often, there are a series of precedents through the years that are relevant to the issue before the Chair today.

Mr. Speaker Michener, on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, held, in relation to the rule of anticipation concerning nearly identical pieces of legislation:

...I first considered whether the motion should be accepted to stand on the Order Paper at the same time. I am satisfied that this was quite in order, but I came to the conclusion that it would be quite improper to permit a second debate on identically the same subject matter as the subject matter of a debate which was already proceeding. In other words, the House is not going to occupy itself on two separate occasions under two separate headings with exactly the same business. That would not be reasonable, and I can find no support or authority for following such a course. Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.

Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, on July 7, 1969, said, in a ruling found at page 1317 of the Journals, concerning a government motion to amend the Standing Orders, anticipating a motion to concur in a report of the former standing committee on procedure and organization:

I might say, having taken into account the arguments advanced by members of the opposition, that if the honourable Member for Grenville-Carleton had moved his [concurrence] motion I would have recognized that the rule of anticipation would have given his motion precedence...to the motion that is now before the House in the name of the President of the Privy Council. I would have so ruled...

A much more recent predecessor of yours, Mr. Speaker, considered the matter of two committee instruction motions that varied by a difference of just five words. The Chair ruled, on June 11, 2014, at page 6649 of the Debates:

Upon examination of the section of O'Brien and Bosc, upon which both House leaders have relied extensively for their arguments, it seems to the Chair that the key concept is the question of whether or not the motions are substantially the same.

Upon examination of both motions on the notice paper, it does seem that the motions are substantially the same and that the principles cited by the government House leader as to the practice of the House are persuasive to the Chair. Accordingly, we will not be proceeding with the motion at this time.

The rule of anticipation is a concept which is not unheard of in the current Parliament, or to you, Mr. Speaker, for that matter.

On May 11, 2022, the Deputy Speaker, at page 5123 of the Debates, ruled that Bill C-250, the private member's bill proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, could not be debated and would be rendered pending, following the second reading of Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill that contained clauses similar to my friend's bill, because:

The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

After Bill C-19 had received royal assent, you made a further ruling, Mr. Speaker, on September 20, 2022, at page 7341 of the Debates, to discharge Bill C-250. In doing so, you said:

...there is a long-standing principle to keep or avoid having the same question from being decided twice within the same session

A similar case can be found in your June 6, 2021 ruling, at page 6142 of the Debates, whereby Bill C-243, sponsored by the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, could not be proceeded with following the second reading of a Senate public bill, Bill S-211. Bill C-243 has been listed on the Order Paper every sitting day since, under the heading “Pending Business”.

To recap the current case, the government's Motion No. 1 concerning the Senate amendments to Bill C-11 was moved, as I mentioned, on March 8, and then became an Order of the Day. Therefore, Motion No. 2 may only be proceeded with if Motion No.1 has been withdrawn, as the various authorities would observe. Otherwise, proceeding with Motion No. 2 would offend the rule of anticipation and cannot be proposed to the House, as forecasted, at noon today.

Mr. Speaker Casgrain's ruling on February 24, 1936, at pages 67 and 68 of the Journals, explains a possible way forward for the government concerning its Motion No. 1:

The adjournment of the debate, last Thursday on the second reading of Bill No. 2...meant that the question shall again be considered at a future sitting when the order for Public Bills will be reached. This is what is called, in parliamentary procedure, appointing a matter for consideration by the House. [Erskine] May...gives many precedents showing that the discussion of an appointed matter cannot be anticipated by a motion...There is sufficient similarity in the Bill and the Motion to confine them to one debate...The difference in details between the two propositions may be dealt with by moving amendments... but it is not sufficient to justify a duplication of the debate. It is a well known principle that the same question cannot be raised twice in the same session.

The difference between the government's Motion No.1 and Motion No. 2 could be addressed by an amendment to Motion No. 1. It is that simple, really.

All the Liberal government needs to do is allow the debate to continue on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lethbridge. Once that debate has eventually concluded and the vote taken, the government could, in the event that my colleague's thoughtful amendment is not adopted by the House, of course, once debate resumes on the main motion, move its own amendment to achieve the change Motion No. 2 contains, which would be up to the House to discuss and decide.

If you were to find my point of order to be well taken, Mr. Speaker, it would not be the first major procedural error the government has made in pursuing its flawed policy to control the Internet. On June 15, 2021, you ruled out of order many committee amendments made to Bill C-11's predecessor in the previous Parliament because the Liberals on the Canadian heritage committee had run roughshod over the rules and broke several of them in trying to rush the bill through Parliament before the opportunistic and unnecessary early election the Prime Minister called that August.

Now it seems that the Liberals are equally hasty in ramming their Internet control bill through the House once again. It is almost as if the government is in a rush to clear the decks for something to come.

I hope you will find in favour of my point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to your response.

International Trade

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, this is not the first time I have risen on the issue of forced labour and the impact it has had not only on Canadians but throughout the world. We have had a number of debates on this issue. It was not that long ago that we debated Bill S-211.

I know the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, whom I consider a dear friend, has put a great deal of effort into the issue of corporate responsibility and good behaviour for many years. It is well over a decade. I can recall being in the third party with the member when he talked about this, and sitting beside individuals like Stéphane Dion. We understood and wanted to deal with this issue, which is no doubt of critical importance.

One aspect that I always thought of was the way to get corporations to take certain actions as corporations. Individual board members were never really held accountable. There are many aspects in Bill S-211, but one of the aspects I liked was putting more responsibility on the board of directors so we could go after them for forced labour in general. We had very healthy debates on this issue.

What I find interesting is the way the Conservative Party has brought forward what we are debating. If I read the motion itself, which does not take long to read because it is pretty straightforward, it says the committee looks at the bill and comes back with a report. It is pretty straightforward. It states:

That the committee report to the House that it calls on the government to immediately take any and all actions necessary to prohibit the importation of any goods made wholly or in part with forced labour and develop a strategy to prevent the importation into Canada of any goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part with forced labour.

This report was tabled here weeks ago. I find it interesting that the Conservatives chose today to ask for concurrence in the report as opposed to just accepting it, because after all, I do not think there is anyone in this chamber who does not understand the importance of the issue, whether it is the Prime Minister or members of the opposition wanting to see something done on this file. I suspect the motivation for the debate today has more to do with preventing the NDP from bringing forward a concurrence motion on a PROC report. It is interesting that the Conservatives chose this particular topic. I understand the way the rules work in the chamber, and at the end of the day, I am always happy to talk about an issue that is so very important.

As for the motion itself, I would like to share something with members. I do not need to table it because it is public knowledge. The member across the way who introduced the motion asked what the government is doing. The parliamentary secretary spoke exceptionally well about how Canada, in many different fora, can play a leading role in dealing with the issue of forced labour and the impact it has on our supply chain. The Conservatives were very quick to scoff at that.

It is interesting to hear the Conservatives when they are in opposition versus when they are in government. When I posed a question to the member, I noted it is all fine and dandy to be so critical of the government and to make accusations that are not necessarily founded. I asked what the former government did, the Harper regime. The member mocked the question, of course, because Stephen Harper did not do anything.

I do not have a problem with contrasting that with what we have been able to do and deal with. The parliamentary secretary made reference to our international presence. What people do not necessarily recognize, which we should acknowledge, is that Canada, with a population base of 38 million people, carries an incredible amount of weight when it comes to international policy. We have seen that in many different ways.

I have always been a big fan of Lloyd Axworthy. If we look at the banning of land mines, an issue Lloyd Axworthy championed on behalf of the Government of Canada, and the success we were able to achieve, we again have to put that into the perspective of the world. The same principles apply for a wide variety of different issues, and this is one of those issues. Unlike the scoffing coming from the Conservative benches, I believe in what the parliamentary secretary who spoke before me said when he talked about the influence of standing up and speaking out, even in the presence of China.

We hear a lot about China, because it was the example and has been the example used. Whether it is the Uighurs or Tibetans, we recognize that, yes, there has been a great deal of exploitation. However, the government is not just talking about that on the floor of the House of Commons. We are talking about that internationally, even in the presence of China. That means the Government of China, and often Chinese officials, will be very irritated, but I believe it is a role that Canadians expect because it is a part of our values.

If we look at the sheer immigration numbers and the people who want to come to Canada, it is a very impressive thing. I believe that is because they look at the values and opportunities Canada has to offer, which translates into the House of Commons and the role we play not only domestically but internationally. That is the reason it is important that, whether it is the Prime Minister or a critic from the opposition party, if we have the opportunity to talk about Canadian values, this is the type of value we should be talking about.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the United Nations many years ago. It talks about the rights of children and their protection, and there are things we can do. That is one of the reasons why a few minutes back I made reference to a public document, which the parliamentary secretary made reference to earlier. I actually printed out a copy of it. It is the ministerial mandate letter for the Minister of Labour, authored by the Prime Minister. It provides instructions, and members who are watching or following the debate can easily look into it themselves by doing a simple Google search.

The letter that comes from the Prime Minister states:

As Minister of Labour, your immediate priorities are to work with federally regulated workplaces to ensure that COVID-19 vaccinations are enforced for those workers and to advance amendments to the Canada Labour Code to provide 10 paid days of sick leave for all federally regulated workers. I also expect you to work with federally regulated employers and labour groups, and with provincial and territorial counterparts, to make workplaces fairer and safer for everyone across the country as well as lead our efforts to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains.

To realize these objectives, I ask that you achieve results for Canadians by delivering the following commitments.

Then the letter lists a number of commitments, and this is one of them:

With the support of the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development—

I would like to emphasize this.

—introduce legislation to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and ensure that Canadian businesses operating abroad do not contribute to human rights abuses.

I challenge the member who chose to turn this into a political issue by saying the government has not done anything and who then went on to criticize Canada's border control. That is why I posed the question. In opposition, it sure is easy for the Conservative Party to be as critical as it wants, knowing full well that when it was in government it did absolutely nothing on this file.

Even during a pandemic and many other aspects like a war, we can see that this is a priority of the government. We have different departments coming together to provide legislation. Tell me where the former government had any interest in passing legislation. The Conservatives can talk about this, but their math is all messed up, as pointed out earlier after one member said it is eight years later. Sometimes it takes a little while to clean up the Conservative mess. We went on to have a pandemic, and now a war is taking place, but we have seen other budgetary measures and legislative measures, some of which have already been pointed out by a previous speaker. There is a very clear indication that we are developing legislation.

I will note something interesting in the EU:

On 14 September 2022, the European Commission presented a proposal for a regulation to prohibit products made using forced labour, including child labour, on the internal market of European Union (EU). The proposed legislation fits into the context of EU efforts to promote decent work worldwide.

I do not know all the details of this, but I think it is important for us to recognize that this is not just about Canada alone. Canada does work very closely with its partners, with its allied forces, the EU being one of them. That was referred to in 2022. The Prime Minister's letter to the minister was back in 2021. It does take time, as a great deal of consideration must be factored in. From a good governance, corporate perspective, companies want to ensure that supply chains are being supported by non-forced labour, and those that are prepared to put in that extra effort will ultimately have more security going forward.

I do not believe that Canada is alone. I believe it is working with other like-minded nations in recognizing the harm that forced labour causes. Forced labour takes many different forms. There is exploitation of individuals here today in Canada. When we think about exploitation of labour, we should not believe it is just something beyond our borders. There is a role for provinces in particular, along with the federal government, in looking at what is not only happening abroad but also happening here in Canada.

I know it exists. I have advocated consistently in the past against the exploitation of human beings. It is just wrong, and as parliamentarians we would like to make sure we are making progress in dealing with that. Human smuggling takes place, and it is pure exploitation, whether it is getting an individual into a factory or selling an individual for sexual services. Unfortunately, it is something that happens.

I believe the United Nations said that it could be as high as 10%. Members should not quote me on it, but I believe it is somewhere in that neighbourhood worldwide, with about 10% of the population of the globe being exploited in one form or another.

I mention children more than anything else because that is where my primary focus is, but there are other vulnerable groups, some more than others, that need to be taken into consideration. I like to believe that, as Canada continues to move forward on this file, we will continue to have healthy discussions. My colleague's legislation will be coming forward at some point in the future once the appropriate consultation has taken place.

I believe this is an issue that has been here since well before any of us have been around. I am not just talking about inside the House of Commons. I am talking in life in general. It is something that is not going to be cured overnight. At the end of day, we do have a responsibility, a responsibility that has been taken very, very seriously.

The government has seen the benefits of trade. Canada, more so than most countries around the world, is dependent on trade. It is dependent on exports and imports. It is not like we are a self-sufficient country in producing that does not require the importation of products. We are far from that. That is one of the reasons that, as we move forward, and we will move forward on this file, we do so in a way Canadians can get behind and support.

Interestingly enough, there was reference to the North America trade agreement. We saw, incorporated into that trade agreement, the issue of workers' rights and environmental concerns. As a government, we have signed off on more trade agreements than any other government before us because we recognize just how important trade is to our country. At the same time, we have very much taken a keen interest in the supply chain and getting rid of the exploitation of people. I believe we are going to see more effort on that issue in the coming months and years ahead.

With those few words, I am thankful for the opportunity to share some thoughts and look forward to any questions, if there are any.

[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.