Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Nov. 28th, 2017

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for your testimony today.

You mentioned, Mr. Lewchuk, that there is no standard international legal definition of modern slavery. Can you provide us with something of a definition that aligns with how World Vision understands the problem?

[Simon Lewchuk]

We would often equate modern slavery with forced labour, again, forced labour of adults and children, because I think it denotes this most abhorrent, extreme form of labour rights violations. But as I said, I don't think that in any way minimizes the reality of the other 148 million children once you subtract the 4.3 million children who are in forced labour. In the ILO's recent estimates around modern slavery, the estimates include forced labour as well as forced marriage, which is a decision that the ILO has made. We're not explicitly addressing forced marriage in our comments here, but I would say there still remains to be a standardized agreed-upon definition of modern slavery. This creates some challenges certainly for companies, and even in the U.K., with the Modern Slavery Act. Now companies are actively asking the U.K. Home Office if they should be reporting on all forms of child labour and which ones. That's why I think guidance and clarity are absolutely key.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

An emerging theme that we will see, and indeed, we're already seeing it take shape, is that the supply chain is the crux of the matter, monitoring the supply chain, getting in and understanding what is taking place at each level of the supply chain before a good is purchased on the shelves here in Canada.

Can you tell us the best practices in terms of what you've been able to ascertain from your research about how to best monitor all this at the supply chain level? We can have legislation, but unless there are robust mechanisms in place to look at what's happening at the level of the supply chain, I fear that legislation would, in effect, be toothless.

That goes to whomever, although, Mr. Messenger, perhaps you might want to take that question.

[Michael Messenger]

I'll start.

I think it's important. What we're looking at and where we've seen success is really a fairly light touch. Even though different jurisdictions have approached it differently, the U.K.'s example is probably the one that's the most mature at this point. It's a focus on reporting. Rather than going through, it's absolutely a conversation we should have at a policy level of how we can address issues of supply chain in specific circumstances all the way down. Of course, as my colleague from UNICEF said, we can't ignore the social factors and others at the grassroots level as well.

What we're suggesting here is actually that reporting is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. It provides a basis for greater dialogue by having companies simply be required to say that they are considering what this looks like.

We've seen in the U.K. that it's not toothless at all. In fact, companies are drawing greater attention to the issue. They're recognizing it, and it has become part of the conversation. As a result, it's driving change and conversation with organizations such as ours and companies to ask how we can address those critical policy issues that might be more substantive as we consider and work together, and move our way up and down the chain.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Can I ask you a question about thresholds?

As you know, in the United Kingdom, the companies impacted by the legislation have an annual turnover in the equivalent of $60 million Canadian. Do you think that's an appropriate threshold? Do you believe in thresholds?

[Michael Messenger]

One key thing is we want this to work. It shouldn't be another barrier to business with red tape and bureaucracy that slows things down. One of the benefits of just focusing on the larger companies is that, first of all, you have a greater impact because of their global reach. Second, larger companies tend to be those with the capacity and resources to be able to meet the requirements and create effective change.

If we see that some of the larger companies are willing to lead the way, it can also then be an example for others of best practice. We have some of those large companies that are committed to processes such as this, whether we look at Amazon, IKEA, Marks and Spencer, or Tesco in the U.K.

We feel that there needs to be a cap. What that threshold should be needs to be part of the conversation as we look at the different levels in the emerging legislation in other jurisdictions, as we bring together a multi-stakeholder approach to consider where that becomes an undue burden, but where we can set the level.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It would be difficult to see how firms that don't have an annual turnover of $60 million would have the monitoring abilities to carry out what would be called for in any piece of potential legislation.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I want to ask a question on fair trade. As you know much better than most, fair trade has become something of a movement among consumers and democratic societies. That includes Canada. However, there is a problem. Many products that are advertised as fair trade are indeed not fair trade; they are produced in very unfair ways. This has only been uncovered as a result of investigative journalism and other whistle-blowers coming forward and making it clear that what is advertised is not actually the case. I'm not saying this applies writ large, but it's a significant issue.

How can we learn from that experience and apply those lessons here to the issue of modern slavery and child labour?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Please be as succinct as possible.

[Simon Lewchuk]

Really briefly, there's no perfect certification system. I think even fair trade acknowledges that buying fair trade doesn't certify completely that there's no child labour involved. It means they're taking proactive steps to try to reduce that likelihood. The beauty of supply chain reporting legislation is that it's not imposing a one-size-fits-all on companies, saying, “You must certify that your supply chains are absolutely free of child labour.”

We know it's complex. It's simply saying, “What are you doing this year and what are you going to do next year to address that? Let's have a constructive dialogue.”

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It sounds pragmatic. Aiming for perfection is not going to get us very far at all.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fragiskatos and Mr. Lewchuk.

Now, we'll move to Madam Hardcastle.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you gentlemen for your insightful comments.

We know that this is an issue that's been long standing, but what's emerging is consumer realization about the issue and that we need some kind of legislative framework as well. Different countries are responding in different ways. One of the more significant milestones in this has been the sustainable development goals, particularly identifying the end of child labour by 2025.

Further to my colleague's point about fair trade, we do understand now that there is a lot of fraud surrounding this issue. People and corporations think they are accessing a fair supply chain but actually fraud is being committed, particularly in seafood, as I've learned through my research.

I'd like to hear from each of you. I'm just going to give a preamble and then you guys can use up the rest of my time. That's been my practice generally, so we use the time wisely.

Is this child rights and security checklist something that...? How can we legislate that at our end and help countries where the child labour is taking place build capacity? Is that a tool? What are some of the other ways we could be legislating and using that? Maybe there's some other approach we should be using. I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

[Simon Chorley]

To address that initial comment, I think under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada has obviously ratified, and then the convention's general comment 16, there are a variety of measures which governments can and should take to address children's rights and child labour in particular. That includes the legislative approach, but it does also include other, I guess what you might call, softer approaches, in terms of policy and capacity building.

To address an earlier comment, I would say we need to.... The reporting assists with compliance, but it also helps us move beyond compliance to shape a business culture where it's a race to the top and not a race to the bottom, when it comes to sustainability performance. With respect to the child rights and security checklist, we already have provisions, which governments are inundated to implement, such as ILO conventions 182 and 138. In terms of the minimum requirements for what governments should be implementing, those are already covered.

The checklist is a tool that companies and governments have committed to pilot around the world. It's one of the suite of tools which will be relevant to different companies depending on their situation. At that stage, legislation might not be the most appropriate way, but companies are after practical solutions. They want an example of what another company has done that they could then adapt and replicate in their context. We already have the pioneers in the field and we now need to encourage the rest of the field to adapt and replicate.

I don't know if my colleagues want to add something.

[Michael Messenger]

I'll just speak to this idea of pioneers in the field because I think this is a really interesting point.

What are the factors that led to the extractive industy having some identified pioneers in the field, for example? Some of it was due to public attention and challenge from consumers and stakeholders over issues in mining practices. World Vision has been involved in some of those conversations along the way. It's during those moments when an issue surfaces and rises up that we begin to have the opportunity for dialogue to speak to that issue.

What we're really looking for here is that, rather than driving it that way, we can look across sectors to see how we can start to support this ongoing dialogue. It's actually similar to the fair trade movement, which has become it's own piece. The fact that there may be some controversy now around some companies which are claiming fair trade but aren't is only a starting place, because we've identified it as an issue that Canadians are concerned about. If companies are saying that they're fair trade and they're not, it's become part of our desire as consumers—and it's also good business practices, for companies to be able to point to practices that they think are supporting the concerns and the policy reasons behind fair trade.

[Simon Chorley]

Following on from that, the certification is key in terms of independent verification. What we see in the fair trade movement is often a limited capacity to meet the demand.

What you see in different commodities markets, whether it be cocoa, minerals, or others, is a multiplicity of suppliers at the base, whether it's artisanal miners or cocoa farmers, but then they will funnel up to a relatively few number of traders. We need to go beyond tier one of supply chain due diligence, where retailers and the consumer-facing corporations will just apply due diligence to their initial suppliers. It's looking beyond that, to traders or smelters or other levels in the industry. We're beginning to see industry do that.

As industry drives this approach, combined with legislation, it will help us reach that tipping point.

[Simon Lewchuk]

I was going to briefly add that the options for companies, the actions they can take and the tools they can use to address child labour are actually quite endless. It's going to depend on the context.

Fundamentally, though, the biggest challenge we have right now is a lack of openness and dialogue around this. That's why I think transparency in the legislation can be so crucial.

As a quick case in point, in 2015 the Associated Press did a big story about child and forced labour in the Thai shrimp industry, and the connections to European and North American supermarket and restaurant chains. World Vision saw that, and working with our supporters, we reached out to four of Canada's largest grocery chains to simply say, ““We saw this in the news. We're aware that these products are on your shelves. What action are you taking to mitigate these risks?”

It was really challenging to even have a conversation. Until we get to a place where we can have a constructive conversation with companies.... The light and the openness that transparency legislation could help create in opening that dialogue are so crucial if we're going to get beyond these postures of defensiveness or companies seeing NGOs as a threat. We need to actually have a dialogue where we can look at these issues and the complexities around them, and figure out what the best tools are to address them.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much. That's all the time we have.

Now we move to Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Chair, before I start with my questioning, I'm wondering if I can have unanimous consent from our committee to put aside five minutes at our next meeting for committee business to talk about future studies.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Can we do it next week, on Tuesday?

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Next week is fine with us.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your very compelling testimony today. We just finished a study on sex trafficking in south Asia and understand the factors at play when we look at trafficking and child labour, which are very much interplaying in all that.

We look at the possibility of eliminating child labour, but the real question I am finding more and more as we try to eliminate the main source of income for a lot of these families who are highly dependent on the income these children are bringing into the home is how we can work towards eliminating child labour but at the same time maintain these households. In helping to eradicate this problem, what are some of the measures your organizations have taken, and what can the Government of Canada do with that piece of it?

[Simon Chorley]

If I may refer to the programming we're doing, for example, in Bangladesh and Vietnam, the main focus is on women as the primary caregivers of children, ensuring that although they might be paid the minimum wage, the gap between that and the actual living wage is closed through better working conditions and better care. As you increase the livelihood of the caregiver, there is less need to put children in situations of child labour. That includes working with government, but also working with industry and looking at how we equip children and young people to apply for the gaps in the workforce that there will be as a result.

Looking at it holistically and looking at that community approach to providing the families and caregivers with those kinds of measures is something we're starting to pilot now in those two countries.

You also see a gender-responsive approach, where you have double duties on women. They might have to go to work for 12 to 18 hours a day, but then they also have their domestic duties, whereas men in many societies don't have that double burden. Focusing on women as the caregivers and ensuring their quality of life is such that they don't have to take on those double duties is essential to making sure we don't have children in child labour.

[Michael Messenger]

Maybe I can add to that.

A good example is the girl Tania, who I talked about. Actually, supply chain legislation right now is not going to assist Tania in having to meet the economic needs of her family. World Vision, supported by other government actors and Canadian supporters, has to come alongside and deal with what I think of as the push factors, providing alternative economic opportunities and trying to transition from more hazardous work to less hazardous work to try to improve the economic situation in the whole community so that there aren't those factors and necessarily having to push them to go and find work.

It's also important to remember that in addition to addressing those things and the broader complex social norms, there is a pull factor involved here as well that will have an impact in that particular situation. If we can address supply chains and encourage companies to figure out how we can improve the lives of folks involved all the way down.... One of the factors we see is that in the expectations for low-cost employment, pushing to the lowest-cost employees, often those are children and those who can be exploited, not adult workers. If we can actually incentivize companies through the supply chain, looking at the pull factors, to be concerned about this and so that there's an expectation around this, we can actually improve the economic likelihood that an adult can actually go to work, not making the companies look to the lower-cost alternative so that children can actually be doing things we think kids should be involved in like education and opportunities for safety and security.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

How important is the collection of data and how do you tackle it?