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 .

Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his hard work on the file. Also, I would like to recognize the all-party parliamentary group that has worked together on these issues as well as, of course, Senator Miville-Dechêne, who put the bill forward in the other place. Conservatives are supportive of Bill S-211. We are also supportive of being able to move quickly on the bill in light of the urgency on the issue.

There is one notable difference between Bill S-211 and a previous version, which is that the bill before us would impose obligations on government entities with respect to preventing forced labour in their supply chains, as well as on businesses. From the perspective of the Conservative Party, the inclusion of that obligation on government is very important. We should not be asking the private sector to do things in this regard if the government itself is not prepared to step up to do.

I wonder if the member could speak to the importance of government, in its own procurement, to step up as well.

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

moved 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.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank an abundance of colleagues who have been very instrumental in getting this bill to where it is now. First and foremost I thank Senator Miville-Dechêne, who shepherded this through the Senate of Canada, and my friend and colleague, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, who has been very helpful as well.

I also want to acknowledge other friends, who are in the chamber as we speak. I expect they are supportive of this initiative and I want to thank them. I am rather hoping that just before the end of the hour, the debate will cease and we will move to have a recorded division at the first available opportunity.

First and foremost, I want members to feel the garments they are wearing. Do we know for certain that the garments we are wearing are free of supply chain slavery? When we go home tonight and open a can of tomato paste or a seafood dish, will we be absolutely certain that there is no element of slavery in the supply chain that brought that product to us?

A lot of us take pride in trying to reduce our GHG emissions, so I, like many others, have a couple of solar panel arrays. Am I sure that the components of those solar panels, or the solar panels themselves, are free of supply chain slavery?

I ask these questions because cotton, solar panels, tomato paste and seafood products have all been traced to slave-like conditions overseas. Report after report and American customs officials indicate that these products and many others are produced by forced labour and/or child labour, and we innocent, or maybe ignorant, Canadian consumers are complicit in this noxious practice.

In 2016, it was estimated that 34 billion dollars' worth of goods sold by over 1,200 Canadian companies were infected by supply chain slavery. A World Vision survey estimates that four billion dollars' worth of food products, primarily from Mexico, including coffee, fish, tomatoes, cane sugar and cocoa, are among the most common products of slave labour.

Cotton from Xinjiang is produced by Uighur slaves. Cobalt from the Congo is mined by children, and it goes into all the electric vehicles we are hoping to produce. In Canada, agricultural workers are particularly at risk, as are hotel maintenance workers.

I could use up my entire time here listing the human rights abuses of our fellow global citizens. The assumption of this bill is that different consumption choices would be made if there was a readily available source of knowledge. Neither I nor anybody else wishes to be the unwitting supporters of slavery. As William Wilberforce, possibly the greatest parliamentarian of the British Westminster system, once said, we may choose to look the other way, but we can never say we did not know.

What is to be done? Bill S-211 is a modest proposal to bring transparency to our supply chains, and if properly implemented, it could actually make a big impact. The preamble defines the issue and cites numerous international labour conventions to which Canada is a signatory. The purpose clause imposes reporting requirements on governments and business entities in Canada.

Part 1 binds government institutions in the bill. As legislators, we could hardly expect the companies of Canada to be bound by this kind of legislation if we are not prepared to bind ourselves. Part 2 binds entities producing or selling in Canada with similar reporting obligations as governments. The business entities must either be listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange or meet two out of three criteria: $20 million in assets, $40 million in sales or 250 employees.

The next part of the legislation sets out the annual report, what it needs to say and who can sign it. We see this as a rough equivalent to a letter to the auditor. We then outline the authority of the Minister of Public Safety, including his or her right to examine and seize records and the ability to compel compliance.

The final section deals with offences and punishment. Some may query why the $250,000 fine is so low. The reason is that we feel that transparency and accountability is far more of a sanction. In other words, the real teeth in the bill are the abilities to name and shame. The bill would also allow for the imposition of a fine levied against the directors and not just the company.

Part 3 proposes an electronic registry that is publicly accessible, along with a report to Parliament and a five-year review thereafter. It is almost a certainty that future parliamentarians will want to improve and strengthen this bill, as we all gain some experience with it.

Finally, I want to review the journey of this bill. I, as well as other members, have been around here long enough to remember our friend Bob Nault. The journey of this bill began in his office when he introduced us to British parliamentarians who had just implemented a bill such as this in 2015, which was subsequently improved upon in 2019. The Australian Parliament passed a similar bill in 2018. France has an extremely tough bill, but it applies only to very large corporations. In 2019, the Netherlands passed a child labour due diligence act, and six months ago, Germany did much the same.

In the last election, both the Conservative and Liberal parties made platform commitments to introduce legislation to “eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains”. Four ministers have similar commitments in their mandate letters. In the 42nd Parliament, the foreign affairs committee submitted a report and a recommendation for such a bill.

Eighty-seven per cent of Canadians say that they want something done, and 75% of respondents from the Schulich School of Business said that a transparency law would drive change and benefit their businesses. This is an idea whose time has come, and it may be that the Canadian public is actually way ahead of us.

I will end with what my good friend Senator Miville-Dechêne had to say as she concluded her remarks in the other place. She said, “I would say that S-211 seeks to make a modest contribution to a broader and longer-term objective”. This is, according to the senator, namely aligning our businesses “and economic activities with the imperatives of social and environmental sustainability.” She says, “Canada has made many commitments internationally, but we have yet to [translate] them in our [national] legislation.”

It is worth repeating that we are a little late. Senator Miville-Dechêne continued, “Canada is a rich, free and modern society” committed “in principle” to the defence of human rights. She says that if we are unable to act forcefully “to limit modern slavery practices in our supply chains, we...risk...losing the moral [stature] that we cherish”, and we would look like “hypocrites”. She states that does not want that.

So said my friend, Senator Miville-Dechêne, and I second her sentiments.

I am looking forward to questions, and I am also looking forward to an early referral of this bill to the foreign affairs committee. As I said, I look forward to what colleagues might say. I am thankful for their time and attention.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to congratulate you on becoming the chair of this committee. I look forward to a collaborative relationship with you and with all parties on this very important committee.

I want to bring us all back for a moment to what it is we are actually debating currently. As we know, MP Fry introduced a motion on May 6, 2022. In our last meeting, Mr. Genuis introduced an amendment to that motion. His amendment simply states as follows:

and that this study not take place until after the completion of the committee's studies on Ukraine, vaccine equity and Taiwan as well as studies on legislation sent from the House of Commons; and further that it not take place until the subcommittee on agenda and procedure submits a report prescribing the manner in which the study is to proceed.

Those words would be inserted between “rights globally” and “and that the committee report its findings to the House”.

That is the subject we are currently debating. I must say that I am surprised that this amendment has not sailed through. I recall at the meeting on Thursday the members around the table saying that it's exactly what they wanted to see happen. Everybody wants to see us finish the study on Ukraine, on vaccine equity and on Taiwan. We have an obligation to study Bill S-223 and Bill S-211. Everyone seems to agree on that. So I'm somewhat confounded by the fact that we can't seem to come to an agreement on an amendment that everybody has spoken in favour of, from what I can tell so far.

One of the things that's extremely important about this amendment is Ukraine. I want to spend some time talking about my perspective. I'd appreciate some latitude on this, as I was not here the week Dr. Fry's motion was introduced. This is actually my very first time speaking on this subject.

Having the committee find itself in this unfortunate position, I just want to say that this committee is essentially on the front lines. We shouldn't underestimate our role. We're on the front lines of protecting Canada's foreign interests abroad. What we study here can directly impact decisions that the Government of Canada makes vis-à-vis our interests in Ukraine and around the world.

Now, we know that the world is a dangerous place, and it's even more dangerous now that Mr. Putin has taken the rash decision to invade our friend and ally Ukraine. Canada has over one million citizens of Ukrainian descent. Our ties to Ukraine carry a moral imperative. That imperative is to safeguard our foreign policy interests and to stand up for Ukrainian Canadians who are rightfully distraught over the carnage that their beautiful, peace-loving, democratic state has been subjected to. It's also to stand up for the principles of peace and democracy throughout the world. That's why we're here.

We have met these obligations. Canada has met these obligations over our long history. Former prime minister Lester Pearson stood up for these ideals when he assembled the first large-scale United Nations peacekeeping force to de-escalate the situation in Suez. He was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for the work he did. Mr. Pearson also played an important role in his career to establish the peaceful and democratic State of Israel, resulting in our most important bilateral relationship in the Middle East.

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney stood up for these ideals when he was alone on the world stage seeking to free Nelson Mandela and bring an end to apartheid in South Africa. Mr. Mulroney spearheaded an aggressive Canadian push within the Commonwealth for sanctions to pressure South Africa to end apartheid and get Mr. Mandela released after 25 years of unjust incarceration.

The day after his release from prison, Mr. Mandela spoke with Mr. Mulroney on the phone. According to the former Canadian prime minister's memoirs, Mandela told him, “We regard you as one of our great friends because of the solid support we have received from you and Canada over the years.... When I was in jail, having friends like you in Canada gave me more joy and support than I can say.”

In 2004 Mr. Mandela sent a letter in which he said that Mr. Mulroney had provided strong and principled leadership in the struggle against apartheid. He also said that this was not a popular position—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'm tempted to tease Mr. Zuberi and say that wasn't a very concise intervention about being concise, but I appreciate his comments.

If Mr. Oliphant will forgive me, I'm a relatively new member to this place in terms of how procedure works. I always need a refresher so I appreciate him taking the time to ensure that I'm fully up to speed. I hope we'll get to hear from him about the risks of using Google Translate. I always find it edifying when he shares that information.

My intention in saying I will cede the floor to Mr. Morantz is, of course, not to imply that I have the power to give the floor to anyone but it's more based on what I thought was the speakers list. The chair is nodding so I assume that means that though I clearly failed in describing the procedures in the most formal way it is in fact Mr. Morantz next.

I'll wrap up my comments for the moment by responding to Mr. Zuberi's point with respect to the question of topicality and the amendment and then making a couple of comments about the piece of legislation that I was going to speak to.

The amendment we're debating is an amendment to the current motion. It says:

and that this study not take place until after the completion of the committee's studies on Ukraine, Vaccine Equity and Taiwan as well as studies on legislation sent from the House of Commons; and further that it not take place until the subcommittee on agenda and procedure submits a report prescribing the manner in which the study is to proceed;

In the context of this amendment it would be fully appropriate to make arguments about the importance of the studies on Ukraine, the importance of the study on vaccine equity, the importance of the study on Taiwan, and the importance of the pieces of legislation, because that is precisely what this amendment says. It says that those three studies, as well as the legislation, should be given priority over the content of this motion. Very clearly, there are five things: Ukraine, vaccine equity, Taiwan, Bill S-211, and Bill S-233, I believe. There's another bill, S-223, that has some folks very excited so I'm careful not to mix those up. Those are the topics that we're invited to discuss in the form of this amendment.

The other piece of legislation, S-233.... Is it Bill S-223? Okay, it's Bill S-223. It's my bill and I've forgotten the number. Bill S-223 is my bill and Bill S-233 is the controversial one. I'm sorry, it's not my bill. Again, we're being precise on a Monday morning after I've taken a red eye and that's good.

Where was I here? The bill would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without consent. This bill is designed to combat the horrific practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. It also contains a provision by which a person could be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they have been involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking. We know that there's organ harvesting and trafficking sadly that happens in other countries and there are limits obviously to what we can do about human rights violations that happen in other countries. But one important step we can take is ensuring that we as Canada and that Canadians individually are not complicit in those violations of human rights that take place overseas.

One of the reasons we see forced organ harvesting and trafficking is demand for those organs. If people are coming from other countries to receive an organ that was taken from someone without consent that creates a demand for organs to be taken without consent. That's where we can try to intervene on the Canadian side and confront the issue of prospective demand.

These are two very important pieces of legislation, Bill S-223, and Bill S-211. I'm hopeful that the committee will be able to get to them and proceed with them as well as the other important items on the floor.

I did have a few other things I was going to say but I will finish my remarks for the moment. I suspect next we'll hear from Mr. Morantz and I'm looking forward to his intervention and the interventions of other members as well.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair. I'm sorry to hear that we're not yet at a point where there is consensus. I had hoped we might be there.

Just to review the context and maybe clarify a few points from what Ms. Bendayan said, I think we were very clear, prior to the vote on the previous amendment, that we would be proposing one more amendment. I said as much. I said as much on the record. The record will show that.

The implication is, “Well, we accepted the amendment in good faith, and now here's another amendment.” No. I said, prior to the amendment that I want you guys to be aware that there will be another amendment coming.

The amendment we are putting forward to this motion is actually completely consistent with things that government members have said throughout the course of this conversation on this motion. We had a motion put before the committee, in the middle of three existing studies. At the time, I said that the expectation was that we would see two pieces of legislation come to the committee, in addition to the three studies we were already doing. Effectively, there were five things on the table, which is a very substantial agenda, probably more substantial than most committees deal with in terms of three ongoing studies plus two points of business the House has directed the committee to take up.

We said there were some problems with the motion as it was written. I think Mr. Chong identified those problems when this issue was first up for discussion. Fundamentally, then we said, let's make sure that the study proposed by this motion, if the motion passes, proceeds in a way that is prescribed by the special committee, and that it not proceed until the other work of the committee is finished. That's all the amendment says. The amendment says that we should focus first on completing the work we have to do on the issues of Ukraine, vaccine equity and Taiwan as well as legislation, and that the subcommittee should meet and prescribe the particulars of how the committee is going to undertake that study going forward.

In fact, members of the government have said precisely that this is their intention. “Oh no, we're not saying the study should take place right now. Of course, we think the committee's work on Ukraine should be completed first. We just want to pass this motion anyway to express some aspiration about something that we would study in the future.”

Well, we are putting what they have said is their intention with respect to the committee's agenda into the text of the motion. It's always a little bit suspicious when the government says, “This is what we're going to do,” but then we put it into the text of the motion and say that we're going to have this language in the motion to make sure this is what we're going to do, and then all of a sudden at that point, we have government members saying that this is somehow unreasonable.

I think the process around the conversation we're having on this amendment is important to clarify. Conservatives have repeatedly moved motions to adjourn debate on this or to proceed to other orders of business.

Our view is that the committee should get back to its work as soon as possible, get back to the important work it was doing prior to this disruptive motion being put forward. We should get back to that work right away. The best way to do that is to adjourn debate on this motion so that we can proceed with that work. There's plenty of time for further discussion on how this type of a study would unfold.

It's fairly obvious that even in the most hawkish scenario, we're not going to get to the content envisioned by the study, let's say, prior to the summer. Members could spend a substantial amount of time talking and figuring out what and if and the particulars of the study. That's why we've said let's adjourn debate on this matter and proceed with the work of the committee as planned.

The government has consistently voted against our proposals to adjourn debate. They've said that the only way they're going to allow this committee to proceed to something else is if we actually complete debate on this matter.

They're professing the same concern. We're saying that we should get back to the regular work of this committee and they're saying we should get back to the regular work of this committee.

On the face of it, you have two sides that are professing a desire for the same thing, which is the committee being able to proceed with its work. I guess the difference is that we've said the way for the committee to proceed with its work is for the committee to adjourn debate on this matter and to return to this matter closer to a time when we might actually proceed with a hypothetical study, when we've actually completed the five points of business that are already on the table for the committee to do.

The government, working with the NDP, have said they're not going to accept those kinds of adjournment proposals we've put forward, so we are left with saying that if the government insists that we have to hash this out now, then we have to hash it out. This means making the arguments and putting the amendments with respect to this motion that we think are appropriate.

We are only in this situation because the government is unwilling to adjourn debate or accept motions that we've put forward for the committee to proceed to other orders of business. That's unfortunate because usually that's the way things are worked out.

Again, we put this amendment forward. We were transparent about the fact that we were going to move one more amendment. We put forward this amendment at Thursday's meeting. At the time, Mr. Zuberi quite rightly asked if we could have some conversations offline and if could we give each other feedback on what we want to do so that we don't have to do all the wordsmithing and the hashing out on the floor here.

I moved the amendment verbally and I sent the text of it to our esteemed clerk, who ensured it was translated and distributed to the committee. My understanding is that members had it Thursday night, and if not Thursday night, certainly by Friday morning. They were able to see the amendment. They were able to look at it and consider it. I would have welcomed feedback and suggestions from members in terms of refinements or at least expressions of support or not going forward. We didn't receive those, unfortunately. Now I'm finding out.... I'm not entirely surprised. Usually when you don't hear from the other side, you kind of get an indication that they're not going to go with you on that.

We had this amendment that I would have thought we could have hashed out. Could we have tried to figure something out on it? That didn't happen and now we're just being told that actually, you're digging our heels in.

I'm going to assume that there's a reluctance to proceed in the way that we thought made sense, which is to adjourn debate. It's unfortunate because what we're saying on this amendment is quite specifically to emphasize the importance of the committee's work on Ukraine, on vaccine equity, on Taiwan, as well as on legislation.

I want to flag the importance of the legislative items and the need to get to those first. Generally, it's the practice of the committees of the House to say that they need to prioritize legislation ahead of other matters. We have two pieces of legislation that have been referred to the foreign affairs committee. Both are pieces of legislation for which debate collapsed after the first hour. Both are pieces of legislation that actually received unanimous consent of the House, so they clearly come with a strong consensus coming out of the House. As this amendment says, we should study that legislation ahead of engaging in other business.

One piece of that legislation is a private member's bill by MP John McKay on the government side. It has broad, all-party support. It's designed to tackle the critical issue of supply chain slavery, forced and child labour in supply chains. It does so through a transparency framework requiring companies of a certain size to be transparent about what's in their supply chains. I know that some folks on the committee want this bill to go further or to contain other measures. I think it's the sort of thing that does require a detailed study. We have to work to make it as effective as possible to realize the results that need to be there.

Personally, I would be supportive of including a targeted regional approach in that bill as well, to recognize that there are certain regions where there are high levels of forced labour coming out. On Parliament Hill today, we have Mr. Enes Kanter Freedom, who is an NBA player, highlighting issues of the Uighur genocide, and as part of that, forced labour issues.

I think we should consider, as part of that legislation, or separate legislation, something like the framework put in place with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States that would actually recognize the significant risk of forced labour in East Turkestan and say that any product coming out of there will be presumed to have forced labour in it, unless there's proof otherwise.

These are things we need look at in the context of the committee's study of Bill S-211. I've also said that I think we should have an amendment to that bill to add in an entities list, to add in provisions that would say that the government should designate a list of entities that we know are of significant concern with respect to forced labour. Providing that entities list would ease the work that government entities need to do, and also ease the work that the private sector needs to do in terms of just being able to identify what the sources of forced labour are.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Morantz in a moment. I know he hasn't spoken yet during the debate on this motion. I will perhaps have more things to say later on in the debate, but before I give the floor to him, I just want to highlight the other piece of legislation that's before the committee now. It's a bill that stands in my name, although it comes from the other place—

Opposition Motion—A Special Committee on the Canada-People's Republic of China Relationship

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

Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Avalon.

I consider it an honour to offer a few thoughts on this debate, and I appreciate it being brought forward onto the floor of the House today. May I say, as a starting proposition, that I regard the government of China as an asymmetrical, existential threat to Canada unlike any of our other potential opposition. I also take the view that we, as Canadians, are exceedingly naive about the ambitions of the Communist Party of China, and I also take the view that the Chinese government knows a great deal more about us than we know about it.

I thought it would be helpful if I went through my week and talked about the various times this issue had come up. This week was science meets Parliament, and I had an absolutely fascinating conversation with a scientist from the University of Toronto who is a leading scientist on the CRISPR technology for gene editing and gene splicing. He was brilliant. It was fascinating, and the mind leaps to all kinds of possibilities; however, on second thought, not all of these possibilities are to the betterment of humankind.

When I asked the scientist about Chinese involvement, he said that this was open source technology and that there was an exchange of research, but I got the distinct impression that the knowledge flow seemed to be one way. We are in a situation where Canadian brains and Canadian taxpayers' money funds leading-edge research and someone else benefits. Then, the someone else who benefits turns it into commercial technology and sells it back to us. It is not a happy cycle. This is a serious, serious issue in the academic community.

Second, last night was Taiwan Night at the Chateau Laurier. I cannot imagine that anyone walked away from that evening thinking that the Ukrainian issue was anything other than the number one threat to the disturbance of world order. I can also not imagine that anyone would walk away from that night not thinking that a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan was anything other than the number two threat to world order. This is our eleventh largest trading partner, and fifth largest trading partner in Asia. It shows that this is a threat that we think is kind of over there, but in fact it is quite relevant to us.

I just point out as an illustration the speed with which the independence of Hong Kong was simply rolled up, regardless of the millions of Hong Kongers who took to the street to protest their rights and their freedoms, which have now effectively been lost. Can we be so naive as to think that the Chinese government wants to do the same thing in Taiwan?

The third item was the election of yet another Marcos in the Philippines. The name Marcos stands for infamy and for rapacious greed. The Marcos family, over the generations, has looted the Philippines of its wealth and then sold off the assets to the highest bidder. China must be delighted with that outcome. No longer is it going to be challenged on building a military island in the South China Sea, nor is it going to be challenged by the severely outgunned Philippine navy in the South China Sea. This is simply a terrific outcome, as far as China is concerned.

The fourth incident just this week was that I had a conversation with someone who everyone in this chamber would know, and his comment was, “China does not regard Canada as a serious player.” This was in the context of how we take care of our own security, and the multiplicity of covert and overt intrusions into Canadian society and life by the Government of China.

Regarding the fifth incident, members will know that last week there was an opportunity to speak with the governments in exile from Tibet. Some members here might even have Tibetan interns working with them. Does anyone actually believe that Tibet is a free and independent country? That is perfectly the way the Chinese government likes it.

Sixth, it is my intention next week to initiate debate on Bill S-211, which was alluded to by my friend. The simple summary of the bill is that Canadian companies and governments would have to examine their supply chains and certify they are free of forced labour. This week, I was asked by one of my colleagues about solar panels being sold in Canada, and whether either the panels or components were infected by slavery. The concerning answer is that there is a strong likelihood they were.

The day before that, I was in a conversation with one of Canada's leading journalists, and he asserted that 90% of the cotton products coming out of Xinjiang are produced by slaves, likely Uighurs.

That was just my week. That is the concern that Canadians are expressing to me in various forms.

I would also commend to the House's attention a book I just finished by Peter Frankopan, a professor from Oxford, called The New Silk Roads. In it, the author outlines all of the initiatives around the world the Chinese government has taken with respect to the new silk roads. The fly cover says:

All roads used to lead to Rome. Today they lead to Beijing.... In the age of Brexit and Trump, the West is buffeted by the tides of isolationism and fragmentation. Yet to the East, this is a moment of optimism as a new network of relationships takes shape along ancient trade routes.

It is a very clear-eyed analysis of what is going on in the world, literally under our noses. We naturally look to our American colleagues for leadership, but as many have rightly pointed out, the American leadership is fractured along partisan lines and self-consumed by difficulties within its political orbit.

Some of the deals that have been consummated under the silk road initiative have been disastrous for many other countries. One of the classic examples of this is Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka was dominated by the greedy and kleptocratic government run by the Rajapaksa family, which indebted the nation through vanity projects and then was forced to sell off the country's assets at discounted prices.

As I wind up, I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this debate forward. It is a serious debate, and it is something that needs to take place. I therefore will be supporting the idea of a standing committee.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I mentioned a number of items in my speech that we should address, but the member mentioned at the end of her question an important point that I did not address directly: the issue of forced labour in our supply chain. The government has been behind on action on this. We could be doing more to collaborate with other countries. There are other countries that have stronger regimes in place.

Personally, I am very supportive of something like the bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act that has been passed in the United States, which seeks to designate the area of East Turkestan. Perhaps we could envision a framework where regions could be specifically designated as being of particular concern, where there are high levels of slave labour.

There are various bills before the House right now that seek to deal with issues of slave labour. I see we are going to be debating Bill S-211 in this place very soon. These are important pieces of legislation for us to discuss and move forward on, but as well we should consider frameworks that are a bit different from that framework: frameworks such as the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, where we specifically identify regions with high levels of slave labour and place particular restrictions around trade involving those regions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'm going to move that Bill S-211, recently added to the order of precedence and considered today, remain votable.

Could someone second that motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the second meeting of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1), we are meeting to consider the item placed on the order of precedence on May 3 to determine whether it should be considered non-votable.

Does anybody have any comments to make? Does anyone think that this item, Bill S-211, should be deemed non-votable?

Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act

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

moved 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 first time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill S-211, sponsored by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne. The bill has been expeditiously passed by our colleagues in the other place, and I hope the House will do the same. It would require companies of a certain size to disclose that they have examined their supply chains and certified to the Government of Canada that they are free of slavery. This was part of both the Liberal and Conservative Party platforms.

I want to thank the senator for her hard work, and particularly Jérôme Asselin-Lussier, my friend from Thunder Bay—Rainy River for his support and my fellow co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group to end modern slavery and human trafficking.

This may come as a shock, but there are many more people in slavery now than there were at the height of the Atlantic slave trade. About 40 million people are enslaved, and about 1,200 companies in Canada import goods that are infected by slave labour. Canadians pride themselves, as a people, on being in a country that defends human rights. I think they would be upset to know that we are the unwitting consumers of those products.

I therefore look forward to working with all colleagues to move this bill forward and turn it from a bill into a law.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed 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.

This bill is deemed to have been read the first time and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I'm reflecting on as we listen to the testimony today is that all of us recognize that more must be done to help the Uighurs in China, and I think we can all agree that more needs to be done faster. In terms of the legislation, which we know has been in the mandate letter of the minister and which we know will be coming forward—hopefully and potentially soon—I have a quick question, perhaps for Mr. Patry.

We do know that a bill has come forward in the Senate. It is 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. It is about to go to third reading.

I know, Mr. Patry, that you were a witness at the committee that was looking at this. I'm just wondering whether the Government of Canada is considering what is in this legislation for the legislation that they will be bringing forward, and whether or not it makes sense for us to move very quickly to get this Senate legislation put forward, so that we would have at least something in place in the short term while we wait for the minister to bring forward legislation, perhaps at a later date.