Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 28th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Would everyone agree that clauses 4 to 10 inclusive be carried?

(Clauses 4 to 10 inclusive agreed to)

We have unanimous consent. Thank you.

We now go to clause 11.

(On clause 11)

Ms. McPherson, you have the floor.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

I think I'm going to get quite a lot of time to speak today. That's unfortunate, because I have a bit of a raspy voice.

For clause 11, the amendment that I'm bringing forward is that Bill S-211 in clause 11 be amended:

(a) by replacing line 21 on page 6 with the following:

“tion to forced labour and child labour, including its code of conduct, if any;”

(b) by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 6 with the following:

“and the steps it has taken to assess and eliminate that risk;

(c.1) a summary of any reports it received in relation to the use of forced labour or child labour in respect of which there is credible or trustworthy evidence, as well as the steps taken by the entity to remediate each occurrence;”

(c) by adding after line 32 on page 6 the following:

“(e.1) any consultations with communities affected by forced labour or child labour;”

This amendment adds to the reporting requirement. It requires a reference to the code of conduct for each entity on the steps a company has taken to assess and eliminate, not just manage, the risk or use of forced or child labour, and a summary of reports of forced or child labour, including consultations with communities affected by child labour.

The language in this amendment was suggested by World Vision Canada, which, as you know, is a child-focused organization that worked on this bill over several years. Despite its support for the bill, World Vision still has ideas on how we can strengthen this important legislation, and they are reflected in this amendment.

Given that the bill does not meet the standards of due diligence that our witnesses called for, we should adopt this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

Mr. McKay, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

NDP-2 and NDP-3 should probably be read together because it is a layering on of the expectations that one would have on due diligence. It's an attempt to insert a due diligence regime into what is essentially a transparency bill. A transparency bill is a different beast altogether.

Ms. McPherson, to her credit, has outlined what the obligations of a due diligence bill would be. You would have to have a code of conduct. You would have to say what steps you've taken to assess and eliminate the risk. You'd have to consult “with communities affected by forced labour or child labour”. Then you just carry on with other consultations with third parties and with stakeholders on what you've done to prevent and mitigate the risk of forced labour and—now I'm on to NDP-3—“any other risks relating to human rights”.

You've added again. You've gone from the problems that you might find in your supply chain with respect to slave labour and you are now adding on a whole regime of human rights that you have identified. What those things might be is anybody's guess.

You have to put in mechanisms that you've “put in place for the efficient and expeditious handling of the information”. Then you have to summarize all of the complaints and grievances. You have to ensure that there's no reprisal taken against any employee, for instance, or a whistle-blower. Then at the end, you include the “outcomes of its due diligence processes, relevant key performance indicators”.

Even on the threshold that's established in this bill and that's just been passed by this committee, this is an enormous obligation of due diligence.

As I said in earlier remarks, the only two countries that have adopted this style of legislation have been Germany, with a threshold of 3,000 employees, and France, with a threshold of 5,000 employees domestically and 10,000 internationally.

In a perfect world, these are not unsupportable obligations, but we live in a reality where a company that has $40 million in sales and $20 million in assets can't possibly meet the obligations that Ms. McPherson and her colleagues are proposing.

I again urge defeat of NDP-2. I'm assuming—I'll defer to legislative counsel—that if NDP-2 is defeated, NDP-3 may be defeated.

I'll just end on the note of World Vision. Of course, World Vision has been at this for quite a number of years—more years than I've been at it; I've been at it for four years now. They support the legislation moving forward as is. They have come to the reality that this is a good piece of legislation that will move us forward in the space. It will start to address what is an odious scourge on our business climate here in Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Mr. McKay.

I would ask that we deal with these two clauses by the NDP distinctly. The reason is that NDP-2 appears to be within the scope of the proposed legislation, whereas NDP-3, on its face, appears to be beyond the scope.

If members could just treat them separately, I'd be grateful.

Yes, Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

Again, I'm playing the role, I guess, of calling out some of the past actions on this committee. You know, we have heard from the Liberals that there will be due diligence legislation coming forward. It was certainly in the mandate letter for the minister. But we asked the minister to come to this committee and share with us that information, and the minister declined to join us.

We have no due diligence legislation being brought forward at this time. I certainly hope that's something we will see very soon, but I think at this point we have this piece of legislation, which is looking at making sure that forced labour and slave labour are not in supply chains of Canadian companies. That is not a high bar. We have all kinds of tools that we can use to ensure that companies that are not high-risk will not be impacted. We have all kinds of ways to ensure that we are not disproportionately hurting corporations that are not impacted.

I will say it again. Which one of us in this place could look in the face of a woman in Xinjiang and say, “Sorry, we're taking your slave labour, but the company was too small for us to care about you”? That's outrageous. That's an outrageous way to look at due diligence legislation. That's an outrageous way to look at any forced labour legislation.

We speak about the idea of human rights. Human rights don't have a size. Human rights don't have a threshold. Human rights are human rights. I've said it before and I'll say it again. From my perspective, I think of the impacted communities. I think of how in Alberta, for example, we used to have coal mining companies that would slide under the threshold. They'd make sure that they were just under the threshold so that they didn't trigger the federal oversight.

This is setting up legislation that will make sure that organizations and companies slide under that threshold so that they can continue to use forced labour and slave labour and child labour within their supply chains. It's completely inappropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Mr. McKay.

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

Again, I don't want to belabour the point, but had I known that amendment NDP-3 was beyond the scope, I probably wouldn't have incorporated it into my remarks. Had the two been within the scope, it certainly would have been a building of concerns.

I think what is really outrageous is that if this bill fails to pass, or it has amendments that send it back off to the other place, where other bad things start to happen, then that will be much more difficult for the person you are looking at in Xinjiang.

I just want to clarify the point that Ms. McPherson raised about the minister's mandate letter. I read that mandate letter. It says nothing about due diligence. So I don't think that is, with the greatest respect, a valid argument.

With that, I will leave my comments there and again urge colleagues to defeat amendment NDP-2.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We now go to Mr. Epp.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've come to this process late. I'm just joining the committee. In a perfect world, I understand the concerns about not capturing everyone, but then I fail to understand why the unions would not be captured. That's what I'm trying to understand. I think Mr. McKay alluded to this in his earlier comments.

If someone could catch me up fairly quickly on why the desire would be to have all small businesses captured but not unions, I would be enlightened.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Should I go to Mr. Bergeron first for an answer to that?

Yes, Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You can go to Mr. Bergeron. His hand was up first. I'll respond in case there are questions as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Bergeron, the floor is yours.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, once again, I take issue with this argument that we should reject our colleagues proposed amendments simply on the grounds that we need to prevent this bill from being returned to the Senate. I find this argument completely inadmissible. I'd like us to be able to discuss our NDP colleague's proposed amendments on their merits, not on the basis of tactical considerations that have no place in this discussion.

I reiterate that the amendment before us from our NDP colleague is worthwhile because it voices some of the concerns that have been outlined for us. We could choose to ignore the concerns we've heard. Again, I understand that the government is not ignoring them, since the minister is considering introducing his own bill, as he believes this one doesn't go far enough. It's all well and good to ignore what's been laid out before us, but Ms. McPherson should be commended for taking the time to voice some of the concerns.

Once again, I will be voting in favour of this proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

We now go to Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

There are a couple of things. First of all, with regard to the unions, we defeated NDP-1, so it's not relevant any longer. That was taken out.

With regard to why it was there, it was based on some private member's legislation that I had written previously on the CORE ombudsperson. It is an indication that for many of the unions, if not all of the unions in Canada, there is due diligence within their own frameworks. They already go much further than other organizations, and most of them—not all of them—are low-risk at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

Are there any other interventions on NDP-2?

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

We now go to amendment NDP-3.

Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. You indicated that this was out of scope.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I want to know if she agrees that it's beyond the scope.

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

It doesn't matter whether she agrees or not. It's a decision of the legislative clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Ms. McPherson, do you care to move amendment NDP-3?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, I care to move amendment NDP-3.

If you wouldn't mind, Mr. Chair, I would like you to explain to me why this is out of scope and explain why human rights would not be considered in forced labour and child labour legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

I'd like to rule that Bill S-211 enacts the fighting against forced labour and child labour in supply chains act, which imposes on certain private sector entities an obligation to report on the measures they take to prevent and reduce the risk that forced labour or child labour is used by them or in their supply chains. Amendment NDP-3 seeks to require additional information to be included in the report, such as information on risks relating to human rights that the entity has identified and the steps it has taken to give priority to and address those risks, which is not envisioned in the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

Therefore, in my opinion, it is beyond the scope.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, what we are talking about here is forced labour and child labour. Those are human rights. Those are fundamental human rights, in fact, so at that—