Evidence of meeting #122 for International Trade in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
We are in public.
To those at home, this is meeting 122.
Mr. Savard-Tremblay, you have a motion. I'd like you to read that back, please.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Okay. I'll read the motion again, since we're now in public:
Given that: (a) in its budget presented in March 2023, the government had announced its intention to introduce legislation by 2024 to eliminate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and to strengthen the ban on the importation of goods produced by forced labour (page 195 of the French version and page 171 of the English version); (b) in its budget presented in March 2024, the government had announced that it would accomplish such a measure during the year 2024 (page 369 of the French version and page 320 of the English version); (c) to date, the government has still not acted, and no bill has yet been tabled; (d) following a unanimous motion adopted on November 28, 2023, the committee had sent a letter to the government, reminding it of its commitment and requesting a response to the committee's attention and explaining the reasons for this inaction, but that despite this nothing has yet been done by the government; That the committee report back to the House to express that recourse to these practices, which undermine the fundamental rights of workers, vulnerable people and children, is totally inadmissible, and that it finds the government's inaction deplorable and unacceptable.
Conservative
Liberal
Maninder Sidhu Liberal Brampton East, ON
Thanks to the member opposite for bringing this important topic to the floor here today.
This is very important legislation. It's a very important priority for our government, but as you know, it's not straightforward. We have to consult with many different stakeholders. At this moment, that is what the government is undertaking. I think it's very important for those watching at home to know that this is a key priority for us.
Unfortunately, we all know what's happening in the House of Commons right now. The Conservatives continue to gum up the House. If Mr. Savard-Tremblay is truly serious about this legislation, will he commit right here and right now for the Bloc to vote for closure, so we can bring this very important legislation to the floor of the House of Commons?
I think it's very important that people watching at home understand your commitment to this legislation.
Conservative
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
It's on the relevance of the Liberals'...and Mr. Sidhu saying that it's the Conservatives gumming up the House. The Liberals could very well table the documents, and we could get on with the business of the House.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Thank you. That's not quite a point of order, Mr. Jeneroux, but thank you very much.
Mr. Desjarlais, you're up.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank my Bloc colleague for raising this incredibly important issue.
I know, as a representative of Canada's labour party, that this has been an outstanding issue for Canadians, for workers across the country and for our solidarity with workers of goods no matter where they are.
The provisions related to workers' rights are important for Canadians. They're important for workers across the country. Canada needs to take a serious role in achieving the means that this committee was unanimous toward. There's a timeline associated with the motion that was made in this committee to ensure that these workers had a piece of legislation that Canada could ensure we read, review and get done, so we can get to the point of better advancing the protection of rights for workers.
I totally understand my colleague Mr. Sidhu's situation related to the issues related to the House of Commons. The debate there is problematic for Canadians. It is slowing down the work of Parliament. I'd suggest to my honourable colleague from the Conservative bench that all three things can be true in this case.
First, the requirement for workers to have protections under legislation no matter where goods are produced is critical. It's important, and it's a matter of solidarity of workers across the world.
The second fact is that in the House of Commons right now, we have a very serious deadlock or gridlock related to the production of SDTC documents. To Mr. Jeneroux's point, I think the government could make a position more relevant to whether those documents would be tabled to end that.
The last fact is also still true, which is that it's an outstanding promise that's now owed to Canadians. This was something that could have been done before the privilege motion on SDTC, for example. It begs the question as to what the delay is.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
First, I won't respond to this attempt to bring up the SDTC documents issue. This matter of privilege is already keeping us busy enough in the House. We won't start debating it here too. The member of Parliament is asking me to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. However, the Bloc Québécois's position on this matter of privilege is quite clear in both form and substance. Let's get serious for a minute.
If this matter were truly a priority for the government, it wouldn't have put the issue in last year's budget—tabled in the third month of the year—in order to state that there would be a bill by the end of the 12th month of that year. The 2023 budget didn't state that consultations would be launched. Not only did the consultations fail to start that year, but it's the only thing that we have now that 2024 is drawing to a close. Again, the 2024 budget, which was also tabled in the third month of the year, stated that we would have a bill by the end of the 12th month of this year.
At this point, I think that it's a useful motion to remind the government that 2024 is coming to an end. We just don't seem to have the same definition of a priority.
Conservative
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this extremely important issue.
As Mr. Sidhu has already mentioned, we need to take a look and get these pieces of legislation dealt with through the House of Commons. The filibuster by the Conservatives needs to stop.
I would also support Mr. Sidhu's suggestion that both the NDP and Bloc work with us, so we can get the forced labour legislation onto the floor.
We have to deal with this. The government has taken action in supporting a private member's bill by John McKay, Marcus Powlowski and a senator from the other place. That is a good start, but we ought to build and we have to build on it.
The Prime Minister has placed this priority in four ministers' mandate letters. The Prime Minister recognizes it. The government recognizes it. The election is not until October 2025. We need to get this piece of legislation through Parliament and build on what was already unanimously voted on with the private member's bill from the Liberal member, John McKay.
I do agree we have to delve into this expeditiously.
Again, I thank everyone for the conversation on this important matter. It's important, as we take a look at how this trade committee is working with other countries, that we place not just labour issues, which are paramount, but environmental issues and a whole bunch of issues in the trade deals we delve into.
Thank you.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I see that the motion calls for the government to follow through on its commitment. I want to take this opportunity to move an amendment to paragraph (c). I believe that it's a friendly amendment.
The text of the motion in this place currently states that “to date, the government has still not acted, and no bill has yet been tabled.” I would like to make an addition stating that “to date, the government has still not acted, we are still waiting for a government response in accordance with Standing Order 109, and no bill has yet been tabled.” It's simply a matter of adding that this motion does require a government response.
I have a second amendment to move, but I'll start with this one.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Thank you.
We have an amendment on the floor.
First of all, Mr. Clerk, is the amendment in order?
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Okay.
According to my proposed amendment, paragraph (c) would state that “to date, the government has still not acted, we are still waiting for a government response in accordance with Standing Order 109, and no bill has yet been tabled.”
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
There's an amendment on the floor.
Is there any discussion on that amendment?
Seeing none—
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I personally want to understand the ins and outs of this amendment.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
It's quite simple. We want a government response one way or another.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
We can still report to the House before then, right?
Liberal
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I disagree with this, because it will be just another way to delay the matter. Personally, I'm opposed to this amendment.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Is there any more discussion before we go to a vote on this amendment?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Is there any more discussion on the original motion?
Mr. Baldinelli.
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, colleagues.
One of my colleagues talked about mandate letters. Going back to 2021, our own international trade minister's mandate letter says:
To ensure that a whole-of-government approach is taken, support the Minister of Labour in introducing legislation to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and ensure that Canadian businesses operating abroad do not contribute to human rights abuses.
That was in 2021.
Our committee, based on the government's budget of 2023, saying that it would introduce legislation in a year, wrote to them in November of last year. It's been a whole year, and the government has yet to proceed. They've had sufficient time to act on this.
I'm pleased to support my colleague's motion.
I want to make one friendly amendment. I think it's just in terms of wording in the translation. It would have to do with the last paragraph. I'll read what my change is.
It says, “That the committee report back to the House to express that recourse to these practices, which undermine the fundamental rights of workers, vulnerable people and children....” Instead of the word “inadmissible”, which I think is incorrect, I think it should read, “is totally unacceptable, and that it finds the government's inaction deplorable.”
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Thank you, Mr. Baldinelli.
I have an amendment. Is there any discussion on that amendment?
Mr. Desjarlais.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
I totally accept that. I think that's a really appropriate recommendation. You can even use both if you want. It's totally inadmissible and unacceptable. They're both true in this case.
However, in relation to another word, where it says, “That the committee report back to the House to express that recourse to these practices....” I think that's a translation issue. I'm not sure.
Bloc
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Oh, you mean “to express that the use of these practices”.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
For procedure, we have to deal with the amendment that's on the table first.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
I'm sorry.
Can we do them together? We might as well do them together.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
There's an amendment on the floor that we're debating. It's hard to amend an amendment. I think we're dealing with the amendment. It's already been placed, unfortunately.
Mr. Sidhu.
Liberal
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
The subamendment has to be related to the amendment, not to the motion. If you're moving an amendment to the amendment, you can do that, but just not an amendment to the motion.
Mr. Sidhu, go ahead.
Liberal
Maninder Sidhu Liberal Brampton East, ON
As Mr. Baldinelli is adding “unacceptable”, I'd like to remove “deplorable” from that same paragraph.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Your amendment is to remove “deplorable”. Is that correct?
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Now we have a discussion on the amendment to the amendment.
Are there any questions on the subamendment?
Seeing none, is anyone against that?
Mr. Baldinelli, go ahead.
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
It doesn't finish the sentence. We're going to be criticizing the government's inaction. If I take out “deplorable”, there is no further word.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Mr. Sidhu, your amendment as we've read it would end with, “is totally unacceptable and that it finds the government's inaction.”
Liberal
Maninder Sidhu Liberal Brampton East, ON
If we leave it “is totally inadmissible and that it finds the government's inaction unacceptable”....
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
That's why I'm saying we're dealing with the amendment right now and you have a subamendment to the amendment.
The amendment was, instead of having “inadmissible”, to have “unacceptable and that...the government's inaction deplorable” and eliminate “and unacceptable”. You're making an amendment to the amendment, which would say that you're going to remove “deplorable” and add “unacceptable” back.
Is that correct?
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Then he wants to go back to the use of “inadmissible”, so it's “totally inadmissible and that it finds the government's action unacceptable”.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
You're amending the amendment back, basically, so I think we—
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Okay, we have an amendment to the amendment.
Is everyone in agreement with this subamendment to the amendment? Is anyone against that?
Bloc
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
With that, I'm going to have a vote, Mr. Clerk, on this subamendment to the amendment.
The Clerk
Could you maybe just repeat exactly what it is, so that everyone knows what they're voting on?
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Okay.
Is the subamendment, Mr. Sidhu, keeping the word “inadmissible” or removing that word?
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
The subamendment is getting rid of “deplorable” and keeping “unacceptable”, so that's what we're voting on.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
As a matter of clarification, is the subamendment my Liberal colleagues are making right now to remove the word “deplorable” from this motion to deal with forced labour?
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
That's correct, and it adds the word “unacceptable” back.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Is there any more discussion? Is everyone in agreement or do we want to vote?
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
The Vice-Chair Mr. Ryan Williams
The chair's vote broke the tie, so it's defeated. We're going back to the original amendment.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Is there any more discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Baldinelli.
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I'll just repeat what my friendly amendment would read.
It says, “That the committee report back to the House to express that recourse to these practices, which undermine the fundamental rights of workers, vulnerable people and children, is totally unacceptable, and that it finds the government's inaction deplorable.”
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
We have the amendment. Is there any more discussion on this?
Is everyone in agreement? Does anyone disagree?
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Okay, we'll have a vote, Mr. Clerk.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
The Vice-Chair Mr. Ryan Williams
Once again, the chair's vote broke the tie. We are now at the main motion.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Is there any more discussion on the main motion as amended?
At that point, Mr. Clerk, I'll ask for a vote, please.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Again, the chair's vote breaks the tie. The motion is adopted.
Seeing no other committee business today, I declare the meeting adjourned.