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 .

Forced Labour and Child Labour

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

Madam Speaker, the next petition is from Canadians from across the country who are supporting Bill S-211. They state that modern slavery has deepened in the last two years. They are looking for the Canadian government to pass a bill that would ensure Canadian businesses are not participating in child forced labour.

Approximately 50 million people around the world are currently stuck in forced labour and approximately 20 billion dollars' worth of goods imported into our country each year are at risk of being produced through modern slavery. They also state that large companies are not required to report these measures to prevent modern slavery in their supply chains.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons to pass Bill S-211 quickly, which is an act to enact the fighting against forced labour and child labour in supply chains act and to amend the Customs Tariff. If and when this is passed, it would greatly improve our impact in the world.

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

First, I'd like to say that, in Germany, the due diligence law related to supply chains is very progressive. It initially applies to companies with over 3,000 employees. In the case of Bill S‑211, we're targeting companies with at least 250 employees. Yes, then, comparisons can be made, but that applies to a very small group of companies.

Basically, your questions is about whether we could have included all human rights in the bill instead of just issues related to forced labour and child labour. Without a doubt, but remember that it's a private member's bill, which, for a range of reasons, must be targeted, have a very specific purpose and not seek to be too broad. It's a matter of small but important steps. It was John McKay who introduced this bill for the first time in 2018, before I did. Unfortunately, you were unable to debate it. He determined that the bill had be targeted so that it could be properly explained and understood by companies, and I fully agree with him in that respect.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome my colleagues, Mr. McKay and Ms. Miville‑Dechêne, and note their work. I think it was high time to legislate on this matter.

We were very pleased to see the measure put in place by the federal government to prohibit any goods manufactured using forced labour by the Uighurs, in the People's Republic of China, from entering Canada. The problem is that the ability to conduct checks is very limited in that measure. It must be hoped that, with Bill S‑211 and, eventually, the other bill requested by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, controls can be tightened at the border to be able to truly conduct checks.

I have a brief question. What prevents companies from simply deciding to relocate their activities to avoid being subject to this legislation?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

In terms of lists, it's a good idea for small businesses. That said, in all the discussions I've had with medium and large businesses, they asked that the government give them the tools they need to apply the provisions of Bill S‑211. That was said very clearly in the Senate by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

In this respect, I must say that the United States is way ahead. They publish lists of places, businesses and products, such as tomatoes and cotton, that are likely to be linked to forced labour. They also update those lists. In fact, it's one thing to publish them, but they also need to be updated.

We should be doing the same. Should it be included in the law or in the regulations? One thing that's clear is that the government cannot ask businesses, some smaller than others, to do all that without some guidance.

[Julie Miville-Dechêne, Senateur, Quebec (Inkerman), ISG]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to testify.

I am pleased, of course, to be able to share with the committee the results of two and a half years of work in the Senate on Bill S‑211 and the lessons learned.

As my colleague John McKay told you, we've consulted many stakeholders, including in the business community, human rights organizations and key players abroad. As you know, a bill on this topic has been introduced three times, which has allowed us to improve this one significantly.

We'll begin with the most important thing: the Canadian government will also be subject to the reporting requirement. That encompasses departments and some one hundred federal institutions. The Canadian government must have best practices. We saw this last year, when the government signed a $220‑million contract with a Malaysian company suspected of using forced labour to manufacture medical gloves.

We also defined more clearly what constitutes child labour under the law. We did not want to target only the worst forms of child labour, but to bring the bill in line with the International Labour Organization's definition, which includes work that keeps children out of school.

Reports on forced labour will have to be approved by the company's board of directors, similar to financial reports. This change follows the contemporary trend of requiring the same level of rigour for corporate financial and non-financial disclosures. In addition, federally regulated companies will be required to report on their efforts to combat modern slavery in their annual reports. That's a first.

We have also strengthened and harmonized the elements of the reports, including requiring that due diligence processes and remediation plans be included.

As you know, Bill S‑211 proposes a transparency approach, like the U.K. and Australian legislation, but has more teeth, because it imposes penalties of up to $250,000 if reports contain false or misleading information.

During Senate consideration, some asked why we didn't go further to combat forced labour more aggressively. These stakeholders wanted legislation that required companies to conduct due diligence on their operations and held them accountable for any human rights violations in their supply chain. I, personally, have no objection in principle to this approach. Whether it is a transparency law or a due diligence law, the objectives are the same: to limit and, if possible, eradicate forced and child labour. The differences are more in the area of political pragmatism.

In two years, I did not feel that there was sufficient consensus in the Senate and among stakeholders to pass a much tougher law in Canada. I therefore favoured a staged approach—a legislative compromise that would finally allow us to move forward, given the inexcusable backlog that Canada has in the fight against modern slavery. Bill S‑211 is an important first step, but no one believes that it alone will solve the problem of modern slavery, which is the product of a combination of causes, including poverty, inequality and insecurity.

It is true that countries such as France and Germany have chosen a more punitive model of law, which provides recourse against companies that have not done their due diligence. However, it should be noted that, in France, for example, only very large companies—those with over 5,000 employees—are targeted. Only 265 companies are affected. In comparison, Bill S‑211 would affect approximately 3,000 large companies and part of the 20,000 medium-sized companies in the country.

In short, the choice is clear: we can be very severe and target only a very limited number of companies, or we can try to gradually change the mentalities of companies where the risks of forced labour in their supply chains are greater, that is, medium-sized companies.

As with any complex situation, it is an imperfect choice, but one that allows us to start somewhere and stop being silent accomplices to these iniquitous human rights violations. I am talking about children working in mines, fields and plantations instead of going to school; women and men enslaved to make our clothes, our machines and our cheap food.

Members of Parliament can make this bill even better. Considering the importance that Canada places on defending human rights in its speeches, it is time to act, so that our laws finally reflect our words.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome to meeting number 27 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today's meeting is being held in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order adopted on Thursday, June 23, and members will be present in person or on the Zoom app. The proceedings will be published on the House of Commons website. For your information, the camera will always show the person speaking rather than the entire committee.

As always, interpretation is available by clicking on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen. Moreover, when speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you're not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind all participants that screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 1, the committee is commencing consideration of Bill S-211, an act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff.

Concerning the drafting of amendments, I'd like to remind members to contact Alexandra Schorah, the legislative counsel, as soon as possible should there be any amendments to the draft.

It is now my honour to welcome to sponsors of this bill.

The sponsors of this bill, as everyone is very well aware, are the Honourable John McKay, member of Parliament from Scarborough—Guildwood, and the Honourable Julie Miville-Dechêne.

Senator, welcome to our committee.

Now you each have five minutes. We will start with the Honourable Mr. McKay.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

First of all, I was delighted to see that there was unanimous support for Bill S-211.

With respect to the actions that we have taken, PSPC has actually taken action in this regard, as I did outline in committee of the whole. We have a code of conduct now that applies with respect to procurement. We have contracts that have clauses in there that require that the provider of the goods are not involved in any way with forced labour involvement. Those are in contracts—

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

On that point, I would just say that it was critical that we put our governmental support behind the forced labour bill that just came out of the Senate, Bill S-211. We've also committed to dealing with forced labour in supply chains as part of Minister O'Regan's mandate letter, and also power—namely coal, as you noted—is something that we've been working on for the last three or four years.

If I could just pivot to something, I'll ask both you, Ambassador Steil, and you, Mr. Liu, if you could comment.

You raised, Ambassador Steil, the point that international students are an aspect of our engagement across borders.

Mr. Liu, you addressed it slightly differently, but you said that we can leverage Canadian software know-how and our engineering and AI expertise to develop the relationship with Taiwan. I immediately thought of Waterloo engineers, for example, near my hometown of Toronto.

Could both of you take a turn at addressing how we leverage ties between our educational institutions and our students as an aspect of trade and how that can turn into more positive trade developments?

Perhaps we'll have Ambassador Steil first, and then Mr. Liu.

Similarities Between Bill C-243 and Bill S-211

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to make a statement concerning similarities between two bills that are currently before the House.

Bill C-243, An Act respecting the elimination of the use of forced labour and child labour in supply chains, standing in the name of the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, received first reading on February 8 last and was added to the order of precedence on February 9, 2022.

As for 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, standing in the name of the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, a message from the Senate was received on April 29, 2022, informing the House of its adoption. It then received first reading and was added to the order of precedence on May 3, 2022.

These two bills have the same objective, to require certain entities, including federal institutions, to report on the measures that they take to prevent and reduce the risk of using forced labour or child labour in the production of goods or in their supply chains.

The case before the House involves an unusual set of circumstances. Normally, in the case of private members' bills, the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business would designate as non-votable a bill that is essentially the same as one higher up on the order of precedence. However, as it states at page 1144 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

In the case of a private Member’s public bill originating in the Senate, the only ground on which such a bill can be designated non-votable is its similarity to a bill voted on by the House in the same Parliament.

Since Bill C-243 had not been voted on when the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business reviewed Bill S-211, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, on the recommendation of its subcommittee, designated the bill votable in its report to the House of May 11, 2022. Thus, two similar items are listed on the order of precedence for Private Members’ Business.

Since Bill S-211 was adopted on June 1 at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the House now finds itself in a situation in which a decision has been made with respect to one of two bills containing similar provisions and seeking the same objective.

There is a long-standing practice that prohibits the same question from being decided twice by the House during the same session. In adopting Bill S-211 at second reading, the House agreed to the principle of that bill and, thus, has also made a decision on the principle of Bill C-243.

On May 11, 2022, in a ruling found at page 5,125 of Debates, the Chair considered a similar situation concerning two other similar bills. At that time, it was determined that the House should not find itself in a situation in which it was called on to decide on the same question twice in a single session.

Standing Order 94(1) grants the Speaker the authority to make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business. In accordance with this authority, the Chair is ordering that the status of Bill C-243 remain pending and that it not be considered. This leaves open the possibility that Bill C-243 may be reinstated in the next session, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, should by any chance Bill S-211 fail to be enacted in this session.

I thank all members for their attention.

The House resumed from May 18, 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act

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

Madam Speaker, I too will add my voice to this debate. I want to thank Senator Miville-Dechêne for her hard work in steering this bill through the committee twice. We serve as co-chairs of the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. From the inception of this group back in 2018, four co-chairs, including the member for Shefford and the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, have worked together across party lines to raise awareness about modern slavery and pushed for changes to Bill S-211. We succeeded in convincing both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party to add this kind of legislation to their platforms in the last election, and I want to thank all of my colleagues for their hard work on this.

I want to acknowledge the relentless work of the member for Scarborough—Guildwood for pushing this issue in the House for a long time: Like William Wilberforce, whom he referenced in his speech, he has been introducing legislation like this for years in this place since long before some of us were elected and perhaps even before some of us were born. He never gives up on securing the freedoms of others. I want to thank him for his hard work, as well.

There are many things that divide us. Ending slavery should not be one of them, so I urge all of my hon. colleagues to support this bill.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill S-211 and be part of this in-person and virtual love-in, although I have to say that my good colleagues, and they are good colleagues, from the NDP and the Bloc have been a bit stingy with giving us their love.

As some in the House will know, I forwarded a similar bill to this a few months ago. As luck would have it, this bill by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne rapidly worked its way through the Senate. It quickly became apparent that the best way to get the legislation passed was to support this bill.

I do not think it really matters whether the bill originated in the Senate or in the House. Either way, I am happy to support the senator and my fine colleague for Scarborough—Guildwood, who is really the father of this legislation. I am more like the second cousin, twice removed.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the senators and members who have gotten involved, directly or indirectly, in tackling the issue of human trafficking, slavery and forced labour in Canada and Quebec and elsewhere in the world. I sincerely thank Senator Miville‑Dechêne, in particular, for her commitment. I do not think my colleagues will hear me thanking senators in the House very often. I am, however, capable of doing so, because what we are talking about today is so important.

The bill we are debating sets out what we need to do to make our supply chains more ethical and to rid them of the scourge of forced labour and child labour. Not many members in the House had to listen to testimony from Uighurs who fled China. I participated in the study conducted by the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. I had to look into the eyes of these victims who lived under a totalitarian regime. I struggled to hold back tears as they described the abuse they suffered at the hands of those tormenting and exploiting them in Xinjiang. I was speechless as I listened to their stories. Then, I was forced to tell them that Canada is doing nothing to deter their tormentors and exploiters. The most optimistic among us would say that we are not doing much, but the truth is that we are doing nothing.

Less than a week ago, I tabled a motion about recognizing the genocide being perpetrated by the People's Republic of China against the Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in East Turkestan. Although no one could claim to be unaware of the situation, my motion was rejected by many Liberals, who refused to even let me read it. The status quo is a powerful thing. That is why this bill is so necessary. Even if it is incomplete, as my colleague said earlier, it is a first step that must be taken.

Very early on, as children, we are taught that making a purchase is not a trivial act. It is a decision. It comes with significant power: the power to choose. However, in order to choose, we need to be fully informed and make sure that we compare the available options. That is why, when we choose between two items, we want to know where they come from, how much they cost. When we choose between two foods, we want to know how much they weigh, how many calories they have. For some things, however, it is not that simple.

This might seem obvious. We know that anything made in Canada is made by paid workers, not forced labour. Unfortunately, not everything sold in Canada comes with that certainty. Even though we live in a modern state with progressive labour laws and an aversion to all forms of slavery, believe it or not, a consumer cannot take it for granted that a given sweater or pair of gloves was not made by a person forced to work, not even here.

Given everything we know about China and similar regimes, it is high time we made sure that no product tainted by forced labour shows up on store shelves in Quebec or Canada. The people who elected us to represent them expect us to at least try to make progress on this issue. Unfortunately, Canada often lags behind on these issues. Let me share one example. While the Americans block entire containers of goods and demand proof that they are not the product of forced labour, we wait for the phone to ring. We wait for a call from border services saying that they have evidence of forced labour for a given container from Xinjiang. That is when it is seized. How ridiculous.

While Parliament knows that a genocide is happening in Xinjiang and has acknowledged it, Ottawa waits for a phone call. While members of the House, including myself, have heard disturbing testimony about forced labour, Ottawa waits for a phone call. While international experts and our neighbours act consistently in the face of well-documented facts, Ottawa waits for a phone call.

Worse still, I can say that a shortage of telephone operators is not the problem. Last fall, the Canada Border Services Agency seized, for the first and only time, a shipment of clothing produced using forced labour. No big alarm bells are ringing. Meanwhile, the United States has intercepted over 1,400 shipments. If that is not proof of the inefficiency of the Canadian system and the need to improve it, I do not know what is.

The problem does not start at the border; it starts with our companies. Consider for example the genocide in China. Canadian companies are among the top five investors in the Xinjiang region. Canadian companies are not only failing to control goods from forced labour, they are actually encouraging and participating in modern slavery. The problem is obviously not limited to China, but this is a clear example. The truth is that Quebeckers and Canadians are unaware of the extent to which successive federal governments have allowed the problem to escalate, as though supply chains built on forced labour did not affect us. Guess what? They do affect us.

For 2020 alone, World Vision estimates that 7% of goods imported to Canada were produced by child labour or forced labour.

If we believe the actions that have been taken to date, or rather, the one action that has been taken to date, Quebeckers and Canadians ought to be reassured, but that is not at all the case.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill for the simple reason that it will lead to greater transparency on the measures companies are taking or not taking to combat the use of forced labour, whether in Canada or abroad.

Bill S‑211 would create an inspection regime and confer additional powers on the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, including the power to require an entity to provide certain information about its application of the legislation. Each year, the minister will also have to table in each House of Parliament a report on the measures taken to prevent and reduce the risk that forced labour is used.

All of that is good. This is progress, but obviously it is not enough. We have to do what the Americans are doing and reverse the burden of proof if we want to discourage forced labour. We also have to coordinate with our other allies on several other related issues. What are we currently doing about the ineffectiveness of border services, about businesses that are underpaying their staff, and about those corrupting local authorities? We are doing nothing. It is unavoidable: The House will have to take an overall look at corporate due diligence.

Bill S‑211 is a step in the right direction, but only as we wait for the rest of Canada's laws to be given more teeth. If anyone in the House believes that we need do no more than what is in this bill, I would advise them to speak to the Uighurs or any other peoples who are victims of exploitation. I would advise them to go to speak to activists fighting western mining companies that abuse their power to violate human rights, usually under the Canadian flag. I would advise them to speak to the people at the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, which does an outstanding job of informing elected representatives and citizens.

I hope that in their interventions, my hon. colleagues will not forget that voting for Bill S‑211 is not a sign of leadership, but just the bare minimum they must do to be able to look in the mirror. I know that I have mentioned this dozens of times, but when I get up in the morning, the first thing I see is a little note that says: “Who do you work for?” I work for the people who gave me a mandate to represent their values and their interests to the best of my abilities.

Quebeckers believe in fairness. As kids, they learn that they should not do to others what they would not want done to themselves. They know that it is important to surround themselves with people who respect each individual's human rights. They want their elected officials to walk the talk, to be consistent and to fight for what is right.

Frankly, our public policies fall short of what we project on the international stage. This bill brings us closer to that level, but it is hardly worth bragging about. It is not as binding as the due diligence laws that already exist or are being debated in European parliaments. This bill is the bare minimum, as I was saying, and we will have to move in the same direction as the Europeans and pass human rights due diligence laws. Requiring accountability is a start.

We will soon have to enforce real, harsh requirements to change bad practices. By tolerating the commission of, or even participation in, human rights violations of any kind, we are complicit in actions that are against the law in Canada. This would also provide a solution to the limitations of import controls, which can no longer be ignored, and would prevent consumers from purchasing products manufactured through modern-day slavery.

I urge our hon. colleagues to support the demands of 150 civil society organizations from around the world, which have published model due diligence legislation. Much of the work has already been done. Now we just have to rise to the occasion. We need to act, we need to be effective and, above all, we need to be fair.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I would like to highlight the great work he does every day on defending international human rights. I sincerely congratulate him. I have worked on files with him, and I am pleased that he spoke on this matter today.

Does he believe that Bill S-211 solves everything? He will probably answer that it does not.

Does he believe that Canada must pass real legislation on corporate due diligence? Does he agree that this is not part of Canadian law at present?