Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Dec. 12th, 2017

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

I think I'm probably getting close to my time here, but I'm just wondering if you can maybe explain—and I don't know if this is yours or somebody else's—the rationale behind the government's decision that international labour rights programs are conducted by ESDC instead of GAC. I'm just wondering how the connection to supply chain is tied into both departments working together and then trying to deal with supply chains.

It might take more time than you have right now, but I'd just like to understand that a little better. Why is it in ESDC and how do you tie into global supply chains from there?

[Rakesh Patry]

I can give a shot at answering that, and my colleagues from Global Affairs can feel free to jump in as well, of course, if they like.

In a nutshell, ESDC and the labour program in ESDC is responsible for labour laws, labour legislation, and working with partner countries in improving labour standards globally. We do that on both a bilateral and a multilateral basis. We work with Global Affairs Canada very closely.

For example, with the International Labour Organization we provide the technical expertise for Canada's representation to the ILO, and Global Affairs Canada, through our mission in Geneva and colleagues here in Ottawa, provides the broader Canadian foreign policy perspective on it.

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

Where is the lead on it then?

[Rakesh Patry]

On labour rights internationally...?

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

When we go into an international forum, does Global Affairs take the lead and the ESDC works with them or it is the other way around?

[Rakesh Patry]

It would depend on the issue, but on technical issues of labour it would usually be ESDC that would take the lead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much and we will leave that there.

We're now going to move to MP Fragiskatos please.

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

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here today.

I want to pick up on a point that just came up a couple of minutes ago respecting the legislative aspect of the question and whether there's anything in place at the level of the supply chain currently in Canadian law that would allow for some kind of penalty for those who obtain goods that have been accessed through what amounts to modern slavery. If you look in the Criminal Code, section 279.02 says the following. The offence of knowingly receiving a “financial or other material benefit” obtained or derived directly or indirectly from child trafficking or forced labour is subject to a mandatory minimum of at least two years of imprisonment, up to a term of 14 years.

Could you comment on whether that provision of the Criminal Code is applicable here? Could it be used against individuals or a company who at the level of the supply chain are using methods of modern slavery or at least are overseeing a system where modern slavery is being practised?

[Rakesh Patry]

I apologize. I don't know if I'd be able to say with any certainty whether that particular section of the Criminal Code applies to corporations that are importing goods made with forced labour. We would have our colleagues from Justice Canada review that to see if that is applicable or not, but off the top of my head, I apologize that I cannot comment.

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

I figured. You're not lawyers from the justice department, but I think it could have some relevance to the discussion.

My next question was whether you knew of any prosecutions that have been carried out under the offence, but I'm not going to put you on the spot with that.

[Rakesh Patry]

Okay.

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

You mentioned, Mr. Patry, when you talked about the U.K. law and issues of due diligence with respect to the U.K. law, that in the U.K. and California reporting is required. Compare that with the situation in the Netherlands or France where those models mandate due diligence. In effect, a company could fulfill the letter of the U.K. law by stating, as you noted, that they are doing nothing to address modern slavery. That could be taken as a sign that the laws in the U.K. and California are weak, frankly.

However, would you not acknowledge that it in fact could be a sign of a strong law because it does shame a potential company? Take company A, for example, that is reporting on a regular basis and making it clear to customers that they are sourcing the materials on their shelves through an ethical process and compare that with company B that is selling the same sort of product but is not reporting at all. When the question is put to them if they are reporting, they have nothing at all to say. Does that not show to you that there is some substance to the U.K. approach?

[Rakesh Patry]

Yes, that definitely would be the case.

Those who advocate for the U.K. model certainly point to that, saying that the voluntary aspect of it really puts the onus on companies. If companies are good corporate citizens and there certainly is a strong incentive for them to do so, then they will be reporting and they will be investigating.

As I said, it still is early days for the U.K. legislation to see how effective it has been. But when you list the pros and cons of the various models, I would certainly say that the aspect of public shaming, or naming and shaming, is a strong incentive under the U.K. model and could have a very positive benefit.

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

Thank you very much.

I have a question about federal and provincial jurisdiction. We've heard, at our last meeting in fact, from a witness who has looked at this from a constitutional perspective and said that the provinces have a very large role to play here because when it comes to company law, when it comes to matters pertaining to securities law, for example, all of those are relevant when you're talking about supply chains.

Is this mostly a provincial matter? If we're going to actually examine the supply chain and goods extracted from the supply chain, do the provinces take the lead here in your view, in your analysis that you've done up until this point, or is there a role for the federal government to play?

His point was that with respect to income tax and other measures, the Canadian Human Rights Act, for example, the federal government has a role. But I wouldn't want to see, and I don't think anybody would want to see, this important issue become the subject of a constitutional dispute.

That goes to anyone who wants to answer.

[Rakesh Patry]

I would say that it would be very much a joint and shared responsibility. In terms of labour laws and labour legislation, the federal government is responsible for only about 7% of the labour jurisdiction in the country. The provinces and territories have the remainder of it.

We ratify ILO conventions, for example, on international labour standards. Last year, we ratified convention 138 on the minimum age of employment, which we have spoken about. That addresses issues of child labour.

The federal government has a responsibility to ratify international conventions for Canada, but the reality is that the issues being discussed under that ILO convention fall largely under provincial jurisdiction. When we ratify a convention like that, we consult very closely with all of the provinces and territories. We make sure that they are willing to proceed with the ratification, that they are in compliance—that their laws and regulations fall within compliance—and then we move forward with the ratification of the convention.

I think in a situation like this it would be a shared responsibility. The onus would be on us to ensure we consult properly with the provinces and territories.

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

Thank you very much.

My final question, unless I have more time, looks at the question of modern slavery and the fact that any legislation enacted to look at the matters of modern slavery and child labour that exist at the level of the supply chain will not go nearly as far as we would hope to attack the root of the problem. What we've heard from witnesses is that the problem of modern slavery and the problem of child labour as well are the result of issues and challenges—long-standing ones—at the level of the social structure in terms of caste, gender, and the legal system and its inequalities.

This question goes to the folks from Foreign Affairs specifically. Can you cite specific programs that are already in place and are intended to attack those problems? I have limited time, so if you want to, you can talk about it from a gender perspective, for example, or caste, or the legal system.

I know we have programs that address access-to-justice challenges that individuals in the developing world are facing. It's about getting to the root of the problem. Legislation, however helpful, will not help us do that, I fear. It's about going back to the programming and putting that on the record.

[Claude Beauséjour, Director, Education and Preventing Violence and Harmful Practices Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

I'll take this one, Mr. Fragiskatos.

It's nice seeing you again.

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

Thank you. It's nice to see you again.

[Claude Beauséjour]

We travelled together in Guatemala.

It's a good question and a timely one. The government recently launched a feminist international assistance policy that puts women and girls at the front and centre of everything.

Our development programs have been focused on the root causes of what leads to child labour and on work on any other harmful practice that leads to child labour or modern slavery. The key to ending child labour is really ensuring that women—and men, but mostly women—have access to decent work.

That includes being paid a real and fair living income, having opportunities to work that are productive, having security in the workplace—on that, we work hand-in-hand with ESDC in their international work—and having access to social protection, which means being formally recognized and formally registered in the system in order to have access to social programs. That gives them access to child care and medical care, and to jobs that offer better prospects for personal development and social integration, as well as freedom to express their concerns and to organize and participate in community decisions that affect their lives. Finally, it gives them equality of opportunity and treatment, especially for women.

Reducing poverty is really the key. Women don't send their children to work because they want to. It's often because they don't have a choice. You may remember the women we saw in Guatemala. They would prefer to have their children work and be paid—or to be nourished to work—rather than having them starve. By working in a really holistic manner with governments and with the education system—such as providing meals, for instance, or breakfast for children in school—and working with companies with their CSR programs, whether they're extractive or what we were talking about in terms of Gildan earlier, where they offer meals for women and their children, this is reducing all of those barriers that prevent kids from going to school and having a better future.

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

Much of our programming is geared towards that; that's what you're saying.

[Claude Beauséjour]

Most of the program is geared towards that. I would say that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

I'm going to have to cut you off there, because we're now quite a bit over.

I want to pass the floor over to Ms. Hardcastle.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It sounds like all of you are fairly well versed in what's happening right now in the emerging legislative framework that we're seeing for supply chain transparency. Just recently now, we have Australia also coming on board.

In the work that you're doing with different entities here, I'm sure you can appreciate that part of the interest we've heard from witnesses is that we need some kind of a legislative framework that allows some kind of standard process, standard reporting mechanism, because we have all these different jurisdictions now doing it in different ways.

For investment, you want Canada to not be disadvantaged with something that's ambiguous. Also, where do we fall in?

Knowing all of that, how should we be advancing this? What department do you envision being the one that takes the lead on what supply chain transparency is? Maybe I'm getting ahead of some of my colleagues in the questions, because I've already followed this issue. We're past debating the different mechanisms. Should we prohibit slavery, or should we make it mandatory to report it? It's all being rolled in now in other jurisdictions.

It sounds like you're following this, too, when you see this as emerging. Do you have an idea of where or what department is going to take the lead on this, or are you still waiting for that kind of recommendation? When we're recommending, I don't know who we're talking to. Do you?

[Rakesh Patry]

I don't know if I could tell you definitively who, in the end, will take the lead on preparing the legislation and bringing it forward. What I can tell you is that this is obviously a whole-of-government approach. As I noted in my remarks, it impacts a number of different areas across government. We have an interdepartmental working group that's set up that's looking at all these issues and ensuring that we're talking to each other about how it impacts our stakeholders and groups that we work with. At this point in time, I would say that the heavy lifting on this is probably being done for the most part by ESDC, our department, but we are working in close collaboration with others.

When the time comes to draft the legislation, I couldn't tell you who would be taking the lead on that at this point, but I can tell you that our department would be playing a significant role in it.

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

How long has this interdepartmental group been working on this? Did you bring someone here from that group?