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

[Simon Lewchuk]

I think one of the key challenges around the U.K.'s Modern Slavery Act has been the lack of a central repository for company reports. I'm not sure if that's exactly the sort of data you talked about, but I think one of the ways that legislation could certainly be strengthened is in making sure that citizens, NGOs, civil society, and trade unions know who's actually captured by the legislation and where we can go to find that so we're not searching in a thousand other places.

Certainly, if your question is referring to the data challenges of companies and contracting their supply chains, supply chains are super complex. I think there are some great tools out there, but there's a lot of information to get on top of. We always tell companies to assess their risk, figure out where they're most at risk, and start somewhere. Start in the first year with one or two suppliers and there can be a cascading effect.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thanks, Mr. Lewchuk.

By the way, gentlemen, I think you've presented briefs, but upon reflection, after all the questions, if there's anything that you didn't get an opportunity to speak to, please don't hesitate to put in another written submission. We'll gladly aggregate that with our report.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

I should maybe know this, but I don't. Is the U.K. legislation currently under review? Where does it sit right now? It was passed, right? Are they reviewing it?

[Simon Lewchuk]

It's been in force from about the fall of 2015. We have the benefit of about a year and a half to two years of reporting under the U.K. legislation.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Do they have a planned review or an evaluation of it at any point? Do you know?

[Simon Lewchuk]

Not that I'm aware of, although I understand with the Australian legislation, they are planning a three-year review process once that legislation is eventually in place.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

We talked earlier, Mr. Lewchuk, about the forced labour, the child labour within that bill. Can you give us more of a prescriptive description of what you'd like to see covered?

I'm concerned we might end up with something that's so large we're not going to be effective. Mr. Fragiskatos talked about compliance and making sure that it takes place. Should we start off fairly modestly in trying to focus on one or two of these aspects, or is it good to be very ambitious and cover a modern slavery bill and try to put the compliance measures in place for something as big as that? What would your advice be for us to start out?

[Simon Lewchuk]

Really briefly, I'll just acknowledge that the Modern Slavery Act in its entirety is a very broad-reaching piece of legislation, so my comments are fairly specifically on the supply chain provisions, which are in section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act.

We think that for some degree of equivalency with these other jurisdictions, certainly looking at forced labour as part of modern slavery would be important for any Canadian legislation, but again, we would say to explicitly add child labour to that. In practice, even under the U.K. Modern Slavery Act and some of the guidance that the U.K. Home Office has created, it is encouraging companies to look at child labour; it's just not explicitly in the face of the legislation. We think that would be really key to add here. Our written submission outlines a number of other recommendations where we think the U.K. legislation could be strengthened.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

In terms of compliance, one of our previous witnesses talked about corporations based in the global south facing less scrutiny than corporations based in countries such as Canada. Is that an accurate assessment? Is it more difficult to assess them? Are they not being held to the same standards, or is that inaccurate?

[Simon Lewchuk]

They're all linked. If we're talking about public scrutiny, I look to the U.K. and say that British companies have been under more scrutiny than Canadian companies. As to where that leaves companies to date—and I think that's changing—I can't really speak too well to the situation of companies in the global south and what citizen and NGO movements are like there.

I would say that increasingly, global supply chains are complex and interlinked. A Canadian company is thus not just a Canadian company; it is linked to suppliers in the global south or in east Asia. By focusing on what we can focus on here in Canada, on the companies at the top of that supply chain, I think we can have a cascading effect and bring about change in the lower tiers of those supply chains.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chorley, you look interested. Do you have something you want to say?

[Simon Chorley]

I would just say that one key issue here is obviously around building the capacity of civil society in low- and middle-income countries, and particularly around involving the social norms and behavioural changes, communications, and a broader approach to addressing child labour. When that is the result, and particularly when companies and government have to focus on engaging hard-to-reach and vulnerable groups such as women and children, you will then see increased due diligence. Legislation in this regard would avoid some of the cases we're seeing at the moment, for example of extraterritorial jurisdiction, whereby we're seeing community groups having to bring their cases all the way to Canada for alleged abuses overseas by Canadian-headquartered companies.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'm running out of time here fairly quickly.

Can you tell us what role armed conflict plays in child labour? Also, what role does it play in terms of compliance and being able to make sure that companies are compliant throughout the supply chain?

[Simon Chorley]

Obviously armed conflict places children in particularly vulnerable situations in which they no longer have access to school or health care, in which income-generating activities are therefore not as available to them and their families and they are forced into particularly dangerous and hazardous forms of child labour, maybe being recruited by armed groups, but also into support services to those armed groups, such as portering and supplying child sexual exploitation. It is quite difficult to then engage in supply chains, and you'll see only a very few companies that have a presence in particularly volatile situations such as those. Some of them are, for example, extractive companies.

This is why you have an initiative such as the voluntary principles on security and human rights, which looks to engage public and private security providers on human rights, thus looking at engaging governments and the armed forces as well as the private sector security providers. What we're seeing is that companies are taking the lead in providing human and child rights-based training to the governments. They're actually leading the way. I think that's a promising step.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chorley.

Now we go to Mr. Tabbara.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question will be for the panel. I'm going to talk about smugglers. I will be within the scope once I've finished the question.

I was watching a video and reading an article online about smugglers smuggling individuals from the Mexican border to the U.S. These children were making roughly $200 to $300 per individual from Central America and $500 for smuggling individuals from Latin America. Within a night they were making more than their families were making in certain industries.

I'm going to revert to how this relates to this study. Do you believe that change in a nation's education laws will decrease child labour? The example I just gave shows that many families weren't able to fund their children's education. If the state did it at a national level, do you think we could help decrease child labour in the main areas we've been focusing on, which are Southeast Asia, Bangladesh, and the Pacific?

[Simon Lewchuk]

Absolutely, I think an increase in access to good-quality education will make a significant difference, as will social protection systems, in making sure that families have viable economic options for a livelihood. That's why we think a holistic approach is needed. We need to be working on all these different levels. We need it through Canada's development assistance: how can we be changing the systems of the environment, supporting civil society and local governments to provide these basic services for their citizens?

Any of these things on their own are necessary but not sufficient. That's why, specifically on the supply chain legislation ask, we're saying here is one way—it's not a silver bullet, but it's one way—we can address this problem, in addition to all the other worthwhile and essential interventions such as those you're talking about, education being key amongst them.

[Simon Chorley]

If I might, I would quickly add that often education is free but the costs associated with education are not, costs such as transport, uniforms, resources, etc., and so we need to take a child-friendly approach to looking at education programming to ensure that all of those are addressed as well.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You have two minutes.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I'll pass that over to my colleague, Mr. McKay.

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

Thank you. I appreciate it.

As Mr. Lewchuk and Mr. Messenger know, I'm fairly persuaded that this is a good initiative. Canada ties itself up in knots trying to decide whether this is a federal problem or a provincial problem, and there's a lot in this initiative to recommend that it be a federal issue, primarily because of the international scope of Canadian companies.

I'm interested in your thoughts with respect to how to frame an initiative in a way that does not run afoul of the forever Canadian conundrum of whether this is federal or provincial.

[Michael Messenger]

I can speak to that.

We actually, as part of our work, engaged a leading law firm to ask exactly that question, and it brought me back to my law school days of constitutional law.

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

You have my sympathy.

[Michael Messenger]

Essentially, we do believe that it's constitutionally appropriate for federally enacted supply chain legislation. Just looking at the federal trade and commerce power, it's probably the most promising source of federal authority. There's a basis to argue that supply chain legislation could be enacted under either branch of the trade and commerce power, either the general clause or the international and interprovincial trade branch.

The advantage, in our view, of using it under the general power is that it could constitutionally apply to all companies in Canada, including those that carry on business entirely within a province. We can certainly provide some additional information on this, but because supply chain legislation has an extraterritorial effect, because it would require companies doing business in Canada to report on their overseas activities and disclose information about their monitoring of suppliers globally, it's our view that the federal government, as opposed to governments of the provinces, has the constitutional power to meet this type of law.