International Trade Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

[Stuart Trew]

I would defer to Aidan for the specifics. They've done a lot of work on what the system would look like and certainly in terms of due diligence.

That's different from the legislation that's before us, Bill C-251, which would simply deal with import prohibitions. CBSA would detain, confiscate and either destroy or send back—as I understand it—goods that were imported from areas where they were likely to be made using forced labour.

That's my understanding of it. It wouldn't be an administrative penalty. It would simply be that you're blacklisted as a region, company or country, unless you can provide evidence otherwise, evidence that these products were not made with forced labour. We're going to detain them, and we're going to either destroy them or ship them back.

[Aidan Gilchrist-Blackwood]

Maybe I could chime in briefly.

In the case of our due diligence legislation, I think a key piece for enforcement there is the private right of action. It is a different piece of legislation that we're talking about now, here, but our model legislation establishes a private right of action in Canadian courts for people who have experienced harm in the supply chains or operations of a Canadian company abroad. That is a key piece in the due diligence model.

[Elizabeth Kwan]

I would say that the holistic response to forced labour has two pieces. One is the mandatory due diligence piece, and the other is the import ban piece. If we had both pieces together, that would be great. If we want to, basically, separate the two and do them one by one, that's fine, but I urge you to consider a more comprehensive approach, just because if one comes in, it actually compels the other half to start kicking in, in terms of the necessity to act.

For instance, if you have a new or strengthened ban on forced labour imports, you're stopping them, but, as my colleague said, that is after the fact—the products have been produced by forced labour already, and they land at our borders. If that were to kick in, I would ask you to think about what that does to the businesses that are importing those goods into Canada. The logical thinking would be that if you're going to stop the imports, then you might as well address some of that ahead of time, through mandatory due diligence legislation. This is why I think the best scenario, of course, is to have both parts available at the same time, because that's a very comprehensive approach. I will leave that there.

I would also like to say that Bill C-251 is very important in terms of a model of looking at the ban on forced labour goods, but we should not think of it as Canada going alone on this, because we're not starting this from scratch. There are other countries that have done this and studied a lot of this, and that can be very informative. In fact, the 2024 fall economic statement did mention both parts, and there was legislation that would have been introduced had that economic statement gone through and been implemented.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Do you want to say anything?

[Sherap Therchin]

Yes, for the non-compliance, with respect to Tibet, I think the challenge remains accessibility. I spoke, of course, about the focus on lithium, but it's not just the lithium. Whether we talk about forced labour or any human rights violation that's happening in Tibet, the challenge remains getting information out of Tibet.

I would request a combination of traceability and verification—sending an independent observer to Tibet—along with the consequences.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Kwan, the Canadian Labour Congress represents three million workers here in Canada. What sectors would be most exposed to this unfair competition from goods that are made by forced child labour abroad?

[Elizabeth Kwan]

I would say, any of the industries that import, for instance autos. I think my colleague mentioned EVs, but it's more than that. There are other things as well. It's very pervasive—cotton, tomatoes, bananas from Ecuador—

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

There's tuna.

[Elizabeth Kwan]

Yes, there's tuna as well. It is very pervasive, and I would say it affects everyone.

One thing we don't really think about is what this means. It means cheap goods, but think back to the story of the Rust Belt in the United States. They were promised cheap goods, and they didn't put in strong provisions to protect the workers, so what happened was that it became part of the equation in which the industrial base got gutted out.

I think it's very important. I know it's not something that's obvious to most people, but it is very important to maintain those standards in our trading.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We move to Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for joining us.

I'd like to ask each of you some quick questions.

Ms. Kwan, you would like the government to adopt a global approach, and I agree with you. In fact, during the previous Parliament, I cosponsored Bill C‑262, introduced by former MP Peter Julian. Although we were in different parties, we agreed on the idea behind the bill. I had no issue being a cosponsor.

I'd also heard the appeal regarding Bill S‑211, and I voted against the bill, as did my Bloc Québécois colleagues.

That said, let's focus on the part that relates to imports.

I introduced Bill C‑251, and Mr. Trew asked for it to be passed.

Are you also in favour of this bill being passed?

[Elizabeth Kwan]

On adopting Bill C-251, yes, I am.

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

Perfect. Thank you.

Mr. Gilchrist‑Blackwood, I'd like to know what you think of Bill C‑251.

[Aidan Gilchrist-Blackwood]

On this issue, our network doesn't have a collective position. The network has a very clear collective position on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. There are certainly member organizations that are very much in support of this bill and this approach, and I think that in all cases there would be an important concern around seeing the regulations built out with that rights holder-centred approach. Highlighting that the regulations should be developed with a focus on rights holders would be an important piece for all members of the network.

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

Mr. Therchin, I know you're in favour of passing this bill, since you were at the press conference.

However, for the record and our report, could you reiterate your position regarding Bill C‑251?

[Sherap Therchin]

Yes. The Canada Tibet Committee is in support of Bill C-251.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Trew, you said that the Canadian model doesn't work, but that the American model does.

Why is that? What's the difference between the two?

[Stuart Trew]

I get my information as well from groups like CNCA and Above Ground. As far as I know—and others on this panel might correct me—it comes down to what regulations and legislation allow border agents to do in the United States, as compared to what Canadian border agents are allowed to do.

While we have in place this legislation that is supposed to bring us in line with the CUSMA commitments on banning forced labour imports, there's a lot of discretion for our border services in how they go about doing that. What they need is a bit more guidance. The legislation that you presented, as I understand it—and that is one reason why we support it—would allow the government to start to provide that guidance to the CBSA.

As my friend here was saying, how the regulations are developed, and then how we make sure the government actually moves forward with providing that guidance, is also important. You can't just have new legislation that says the government is allowed to provide guidance to border agents if the government is not actually going to provide the guidance, if you see what I mean. As a result, this would need some follow-up.

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

I'm not sure who will be able to answer my next question. I imagine Ms. Kwan has done some work on this issue, but any one of you can answer.

I'd like to hear about the benefits of the model that puts the onus on importers—whereby they have to show that certain entities, companies or regions did not use forced labour to make their products—as opposed to the ineffective Canadian model, whereby everything depends on the customs officer's discretion.

[Elizabeth Kwan]

I would say that the importers and exporters—basically, the businesses in the value chain—have to step up and look at their supply chains. I think there was an article that said that GM, as a big company, is asking its subsidiaries and their other companies to look at and try to address those risks. It is something that large businesses, corporations and multinationals are doing.

What we want is to be able to compel action by more than just one or two companies. We want these companies to know that it is a good business model and that it is actually a sustainable business model.

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

Let me be more specific.

Right now, in Canada, it's the customs officer's responsibility to establish whether a product was made using forced labour. As Mr. Trew pointed out, in the history of this country, almost nothing has ever been seized. In the U.S., that responsibility falls on the importer, and it's working very well. Billions of dollars worth of merchandise have been seized in the U.S.

If you support Bill C‑251, I presume you also support the reverse onus regime.

[Elizabeth Kwan]

Absolutely.

If you're counting on one employee to stand up and say, “I am going to do this. I am going to stop a whole shipment, because I really believe this is....” I mean, it is a ridiculous burden to place on one employee, which is more or less what the current system is set up to do.

The system needs to actually be a system. It needs strong enforcement. It needs backup and financial backing to it. As I said, if you're not one who actually has feelings about the issue of forced labour or feelings about the financial and trading aspects of forced labour.... We really need to get our act together so that we can go to the CUSMA table in 2026 and say, “Hey, we are doing this.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a pleasure to be back at this committee. It's important that we're talking about forced labour again, even though it seems like I've been talking about this issue for a long time and we haven't really seen any government action, or at least not government action to meet the moment.

A few of you talked in your opening testimony about lithium and about EVs. I wanted to zero in on that point. I think this is really important. Trade is obviously important for our economy, but it's also a tool for achieving other foreign policy objectives.

It seems clear to me that the Government of China is making carefully considered, strategic moves to dominate the emerging battery-driven sectors of our economy. Chinese companies are dominating extraction of key commodities in East Turkestan and Tibet, as well as in the DRC and in other parts of Africa. They're dominating manufacturing, and there are gross human rights abuses in every case, but this is also designed to leave us, in the free world, strategically dependent on the Chinese state when it dominates supply chains and controls our access to new technology.

I'm very concerned about this. I think we need to sound the alarm about it, because, if left unchecked, it will leave our societies deeply dependent, economically and politically vulnerable, and substantially unable to confront the kinds of human rights abuses that you've talked about. Therefore, in confronting the issue of forced labour, especially forced labour in these particular kinds of supply chains, we see a kind of convergence of our moral obligations, our economic interests and our long-term strategic interests.

Mr. Therchin, it's good to see you. I wonder if you can share your thoughts on the issue of how, in some sectors, overlapping with forced labour, we see these efforts at domination of certain supply chains and therefore the creation of structures of strategic dependency for us here in the free world.