International Trade Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2024

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Is there any more discussion on the original motion?

Mr. Baldinelli.

[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.”

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Baldinelli.

I have an amendment. Is there any discussion on that amendment?

Mr. Desjarlais.

[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.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

It's the use of these practices.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Oh, you mean “to express that the use of these practices”.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

For procedure, we have to deal with the amendment that's on the table first.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I'm sorry.

Can we do them together? We might as well do them together.

[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.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Can I move a subamendment, Clerk, at this time?

[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.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

As Mr. Baldinelli is adding “unacceptable”, I'd like to remove “deplorable” from that same paragraph.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Your amendment is to remove “deplorable”. Is that correct?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Yes.

[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.

[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.

[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.”

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

If we leave it “is totally inadmissible and that it finds the government's inaction unacceptable”....

[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?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Yes.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Let's use all three.

[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”.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

You're amending the amendment back, basically, so I think we—

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

I'm taking out a word.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You're taking out the plural.