Foreign Affairs Committee on Sept. 26th, 2022

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

Well, go big or go home has its limitations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Ms. McPherson.

Now it appears that we will have only a second round. The second round will consist of five-minute slots. The first slot goes to Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support the bill that you have introduced in the Senate and the House, but my comment today, and I'd like your comment on my comment, is that we can pass all the laws we want, and the government can publish all the regulations it wants, but if there's no enforcement of these laws and regulations, then they're nothing more than ink on paper.

As you know, Canada signed the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement several years ago, and article 23.6 of that agreement requires Canada to ban imports produced with forced or slave labour. I want to quote what that agreement says:

Accordingly, each Party shall prohibit the importation of goods into its territory from other sources produced in whole or in part by forced or compulsory labor, including forced or compulsory child labor.

Parliament subsequently adopted amendments to the Customs Tariff Act that changed that act to come into conformity with article 23.6 of CUSMA and subsequently the government published regulations to the customs tariffs and those came into effect in July 2020, more than two years ago.

As you know as well, Canada is obligated under the Genocide Convention to prevent genocide, and article I of the convention says:

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Parliament early last year adopted a resolution recognizing that a genocide against the Uighur people is taking place, so despite the fact that over two years ago Parliament amended the Customs Tariff Act, which led to the promulgation of regulations to ban importation of forced and slave labour products, despite the fact that Parliament recognized a genocide was taking place against the Uighur people who were being forced to produce cotton and tomatoes, imports of those products continue to pour into Canada.

CBSA last year, as you know, blocked only one shipment, temporarily, out of the hundreds of millions, billions, of dollars of products that are pouring into this country, which I have no doubt are being produced using slave or forced labour.

In fact, south of the border, the Americans, as you pointed out in your testimony, have interdicted 1,400 container shipments of goods that were produced using forced or slave labour. The U.S. government doesn't believe that's good enough and is actually stepping up enforcement. They have plans to hire over 300 new positions at their border to continue to interdict even more products from coming into their country. They're implementing new computer systems, new training, and they're conducting outreach to importers to prevent this from happening.

I go to my original point. We can pass all the laws we want. The government can promulgate all the regulations they want, but they're just ink on paper unless there's enforcement.

If your bill passes the House of Commons and becomes law, what does this government need to do to ensure that this law and other laws and regulations that are currently on the books are actually enforced?

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

I can't speak to the enforcement or lack of enforcement of current legislation, but you're not going to get any disagreement from me on what the facts appear to be. If this bill is passed, there's a year in which the various companies will have to fulfill the supply chain material requirement and file it with the government. We will start to develop a whole profile of companies that comply with legislation and those that either neglect or refuse to comply.

That would be round one, if you will. Who's going to step up to the plate and comply with this legislation, as it will be promulgated? That would be round one.

In round two, I would expect the government to be a bit more forceful and to use the authorities that are given to enter premises, examine documents, seize computers and issue warrants. That would be more robust enforcement, I would hope.

The third is the personal obligation of the CEOs that we put into the bill, and I don't think it's “not nothin'”. A lot of these people are pretty successful. They don't want to see their names in the newspaper or online or wherever, having failed to comply with this kind of legislation. There will be considerable social pressure independent of the government's initiatives.

I would rather hope the government is quite aggressive. My friend Rob Oliphant, who knows everything, will, of course, make sure that's true.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

We now go to Mr. Zuberi. You have five minutes.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be splitting my time with Elizabeth May from the Green Party.

Thanks for being here today and for bringing this forth. It's so important and so topical.

As we all know, there was advocacy today on the Hill. Many of us were contacted about this very issue, among other issues. However, under the rubric of the Uighur, which we have a high level of awareness of, thankfully.... We all unanimously said that genocide is occurring towards these people.

With respect to this piece of legislation that's coming forth, it's good that it is broad in scope and catches the entire world, the international community, because we know that forced labour doesn't only occur in one region or another.

With respect to reporting, can you speak about how we can trust the reporting mechanism and reporting that's being done? Is verification built into this? Would you like to elaborate upon that some more?

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

There's section 15, “Designated Person's Powers”, which gives the entity—in this case, we are proposing the Minister of Public Safety—the ability to examine anything in the place of business, use any communication in the place, use any computer system in the place, prepare documents and have a warrant to enter dwelling-houses, etc. Those are fairly robust.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

You said America is well ahead of the curve, and that's a model for us to strive toward. How can we get closer to that, in your opinion?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

What's interesting is that the United States has prohibited goods produced by forced labour since 1930, so they're way ahead of us. That said, they've only systematically applied that ban for a few years.

Of course, it's understandable that there's also the political aspect. The issue of the Uighurs is very important. As you said, the United States has a law against the forced labour of the Uighurs. That's one of the reasons why things are much stricter at the border.

There's experience, but also the burden of proof. In the United States, if there's suspicion about certain goods, the importer can be required to prove that they weren't produced by forced labour before their distribution is authorized. There are laws and thresholds that are very different from those in effect in Canada, where privacy laws make it impossible to even say what ship was inspected and who the importer was. The evidence threshold is much higher, and it's the government that must investigate.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

I'll pass the time to Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you so much. I really apologize to Sameer. This is one of your key issues, but I'm grateful for the time.

I want to associate myself with the comments earlier made by Garnett Genuis and also by Michael Chong, and really hope that we can take part of Bill S-204 and get it moved in here so we deal geographically with East Turkestan and the Uighur issue. I also think we know that most of the chocolate our children eat in Canada comes from an industry that, by sector, involves child labour. We know that, by sector, a great deal of the seafood that enters this country comes from forced labour in the most brutal and inhumane conditions, where people are routinely murdered at sea. It's very hard to regulate.

I wonder if you'd be open to amendments that reversed the onus and said to entities that we want to know that they're buying products, they're engaging in chains of, for instance, cocoa production or seafood where they're only purchasing from certified, ethical and fair trade sources right through the supply chain.

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

I would have to look at how a reverse onus works on the obligations as currently put in place. I'm not opposed to it.

I also bring to everyone's attention that this bill has already gone through the Senate. It's already gone through the House. We're here, one inch away from royal assent. In fact, a substantive amendment such as that would bounce it back to the Senate. Again, bear in mind I'm not opposed, but I just want to know how it would work. I wouldn't want to bounce it back to the Senate unless I had absolute assurance that we weren't just going to be bouncing this thing back and forth.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I guess the same answer would then apply to the specific regional questions. Would that also go back to the Senate?

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

Again, it would be a substantive amendment. Again, you have to see something in front of you and where it would be in the bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Then I'm going to rapidly associate myself with Heather's comments: It's hard when you get a step in the right direction, but it's not enough.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm sorry, Ms. May, you're way over time.

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

Well, I'm surprised you're associating yourself with Garnett.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. May.

We now go to Monsieur Bergeron again, for two and a half minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, we're currently having a very interesting debate, and I think it's important to refocus a bit. Let's face it: the government didn't follow the lead of the other parties in the House of Commons on the issue of recognizing the genocide of the Uighurs because of political and trade reasons. Unfortunately, these considerations will always be present.

However, the issue of the genocide of Uighurs was well documented by the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Despite that, the government continues to say only that something concerning is happening in the People's Republic of China.

Without the least study by the Subcommittee on International Human Rights or any committee, the House of Commons recognized the genocide of the Tamils with a simple motion, and cabinet members voted for that recognition. Were there fewer political, economic or trade considerations in that case? I leave it to you to judge, Mr. Chair.

What must be said at this stage is that it has to start somewhere. Better an imperfect and incomplete bill than no bill at all. I share Mr. McKay's concern: we can indeed try to achieve a perfect bill that will meet all expectations and address all concerns, and that will reflect all the details, but in doing so, the bill risks not being passed.

I therefore agree with what the sponsors of the bill told us about the need to take the first steps, which I hope will allow us to go further one day. It has to start somewhere, for sure. As a result, while there are people at the table, including the sponsors of the bill, who are prepared to consider amendments, let's ensure that those amendments don't put the bill's passage at risk.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

You are out of time, Mr. Bergeron. You had two and a half minutes.

Thank you kindly.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

That's too bad. I felt it was important to refocus.

Thank you Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

We now go back to Ms. McPherson for two and a half minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to follow up on my colleague Mr. Bergeron's comments there, yes, of course it's important to take a first step. It's just that historically this government is not very good at taking a second step, so I for one don't have a ton of faith in that second step coming.

I do have a question for the senator, if I may.

Could you talk a bit about what you heard during the Senate committee hearings? What were the potential weaknesses that were identified there? Were there efforts made to fix the bill at the Senate level, at the other place, Senator?