Debates of May 18th, 2022

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, the process is indeed under way, and I believe it is urgent we get to a vote on this bill. I was quite disappointed to see, over the course of the last number of days, opposition members on the Conservative side trying to delay the vote on this bill. It is critical we settle the matter once and for all.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to Bill C-14 today. We are talking about representative democracy, and representative democracy is about being present, being seen and being heard.

The numerous studies on demography tell us that democracies today must have three characteristics to be worthy of this moniker. Those three characteristics are representativeness, trustworthiness and legitimacy.

As far as representativeness is concerned, Bill C‑14 proposes to maintain Quebec's seat count. That is representative, to a degree. However, there is a loss of political weight, so it somewhat misses the mark in terms of representativeness. As far as trustworthiness is concerned, we are living in an untrustworthy world. Finally, as far as legitimacy is concerned, doubts are creeping in about democracy.

It is therefore very important to be able to determine exactly what is coming down the line. There is consensus about maintaining the 78 seats, as requested by Quebec. However, not maintaining Quebec's weight is unacceptable to us. I simply cannot wholeheartedly endorse this bill.

If we allow Quebec's weight to decline, there will—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I apologize to the member for interrupting, but I must ask the House to quiet down. I would like to hear the member.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, if we allow Quebec's political weight to decline, there will be heightened vigilance. What is vigilance? Vigilance is keeping a close eye out to attenuate or avoid harm. We will have to be vigilant, especially with respect to the French language, culture and the economic Francophonie.

Last weekend, I participated in a meeting to evaluate the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie's statutes. We had a chance to put some questions to a representative of the OECD, which is headquartered in Paris, and she told us about a set of principles on artificial intelligence. When we read the principles, I asked her who had done the work. She said that people from Egypt, Barcelona, anglophones and some people from Montreal, such as Mr. Bengio, had gone to Paris. I asked her what language people used to talk about the principles in Paris, and she said that the discussion took place in English. Imagine. All those people gathered in Paris, speaking English.

What was interesting was that you could see from reading the principles that the work was bilingual. I have nothing against the English language, but there is a thought process at work in the English language, just as there is a thought process at work in the French language. What I object to is the single mindset. If we are forced to operate more and more in English, we lose some of the thinking involved. Researchers who write and create in French and who translate their own thoughts lose out a little, but it is society as a whole that really loses out.

When I talk about being vigilant and maintaining our political weight, I am also talking about preserving a way of thinking, a capacity to create, a capacity to be different for the common good of all. The appointment of a Governor General who speaks only English and a similar situation in New Brunswick have been denounced in the House.

This also brings to mind the whole Julie Payette scandal from two years ago, when she was Governor General. I asked the Privy Council Office for a copy of the investigation report, but I was told, and I quote:

It is available only in English because that is the language it was written in.

That makes no sense. The report was later translated at my insistence, since it was only available in English. I am not saying that it was conceived in English, but that it was not available in French. I can read English, but this was unacceptable.

It is because of things like this that I talk about vigilance, about monitoring, in order to avoid or mitigate harm. Bill C‑14 does not meet Quebec's demands. With this bill, we do not lose seats, but we begin to disintegrate. At some point, we will assimilate and disappear. What will we be able to say once we have lost our voice? The answer is nothing.

Before we reach the point where we are able to do nothing more than wave in the hope that some benevolent soul offers help, we must act and we must resist. For Quebec, Bill C‑14 is a call to resistance, a call to not give in to uniformity of thought in terms of tastes, ideas, and existence. Fernando Pessoa once said that to die is to slip out of view. With Bill C‑14, Quebec slips out of view.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 6:16 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 17, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would request that we carry that unanimously.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

On division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The vote is therefore carried on division.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader (Senate) had asked if we could have the vote carried unanimously, and the response to that was no, they would like to have a recorded vote.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

No. We actually said, “On division.”

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes. There is a difference between—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary said, “Unanimously.” That was the request I received. The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil then said, “On division.”

I was asking for guidance because it is the first time I have been faced with that. I was told that it would be carried on division.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader (Senate).

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, in that case I would request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I do not think we can go back. I have already said, “On division.”

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the Table and you can obviously correct me if I am wrong, but I requested unanimous carrying of the vote; it was rejected; the Conservatives then put forward the option of having it carried on division, and I am now rejecting that and asking for a recorded division. I could be wrong. Please correct me.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The table officers confirm that I did say that it was carried on division, so that is how it stands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m. so we can move to Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 6:32 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act

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

moved that Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank an abundance of colleagues who have been very instrumental in getting this bill to where it is now. First and foremost I thank Senator Miville-Dechêne, who shepherded this through the Senate of Canada, and my friend and colleague, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, who has been very helpful as well.

I also want to acknowledge other friends, who are in the chamber as we speak. I expect they are supportive of this initiative and I want to thank them. I am rather hoping that just before the end of the hour, the debate will cease and we will move to have a recorded division at the first available opportunity.

First and foremost, I want members to feel the garments they are wearing. Do we know for certain that the garments we are wearing are free of supply chain slavery? When we go home tonight and open a can of tomato paste or a seafood dish, will we be absolutely certain that there is no element of slavery in the supply chain that brought that product to us?

A lot of us take pride in trying to reduce our GHG emissions, so I, like many others, have a couple of solar panel arrays. Am I sure that the components of those solar panels, or the solar panels themselves, are free of supply chain slavery?

I ask these questions because cotton, solar panels, tomato paste and seafood products have all been traced to slave-like conditions overseas. Report after report and American customs officials indicate that these products and many others are produced by forced labour and/or child labour, and we innocent, or maybe ignorant, Canadian consumers are complicit in this noxious practice.

In 2016, it was estimated that 34 billion dollars' worth of goods sold by over 1,200 Canadian companies were infected by supply chain slavery. A World Vision survey estimates that four billion dollars' worth of food products, primarily from Mexico, including coffee, fish, tomatoes, cane sugar and cocoa, are among the most common products of slave labour.

Cotton from Xinjiang is produced by Uighur slaves. Cobalt from the Congo is mined by children, and it goes into all the electric vehicles we are hoping to produce. In Canada, agricultural workers are particularly at risk, as are hotel maintenance workers.

I could use up my entire time here listing the human rights abuses of our fellow global citizens. The assumption of this bill is that different consumption choices would be made if there was a readily available source of knowledge. Neither I nor anybody else wishes to be the unwitting supporters of slavery. As William Wilberforce, possibly the greatest parliamentarian of the British Westminster system, once said, we may choose to look the other way, but we can never say we did not know.

What is to be done? Bill S-211 is a modest proposal to bring transparency to our supply chains, and if properly implemented, it could actually make a big impact. The preamble defines the issue and cites numerous international labour conventions to which Canada is a signatory. The purpose clause imposes reporting requirements on governments and business entities in Canada.

Part 1 binds government institutions in the bill. As legislators, we could hardly expect the companies of Canada to be bound by this kind of legislation if we are not prepared to bind ourselves. Part 2 binds entities producing or selling in Canada with similar reporting obligations as governments. The business entities must either be listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange or meet two out of three criteria: $20 million in assets, $40 million in sales or 250 employees.

The next part of the legislation sets out the annual report, what it needs to say and who can sign it. We see this as a rough equivalent to a letter to the auditor. We then outline the authority of the Minister of Public Safety, including his or her right to examine and seize records and the ability to compel compliance.

The final section deals with offences and punishment. Some may query why the $250,000 fine is so low. The reason is that we feel that transparency and accountability is far more of a sanction. In other words, the real teeth in the bill are the abilities to name and shame. The bill would also allow for the imposition of a fine levied against the directors and not just the company.

Part 3 proposes an electronic registry that is publicly accessible, along with a report to Parliament and a five-year review thereafter. It is almost a certainty that future parliamentarians will want to improve and strengthen this bill, as we all gain some experience with it.

Finally, I want to review the journey of this bill. I, as well as other members, have been around here long enough to remember our friend Bob Nault. The journey of this bill began in his office when he introduced us to British parliamentarians who had just implemented a bill such as this in 2015, which was subsequently improved upon in 2019. The Australian Parliament passed a similar bill in 2018. France has an extremely tough bill, but it applies only to very large corporations. In 2019, the Netherlands passed a child labour due diligence act, and six months ago, Germany did much the same.

In the last election, both the Conservative and Liberal parties made platform commitments to introduce legislation to “eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains”. Four ministers have similar commitments in their mandate letters. In the 42nd Parliament, the foreign affairs committee submitted a report and a recommendation for such a bill.

Eighty-seven per cent of Canadians say that they want something done, and 75% of respondents from the Schulich School of Business said that a transparency law would drive change and benefit their businesses. This is an idea whose time has come, and it may be that the Canadian public is actually way ahead of us.

I will end with what my good friend Senator Miville-Dechêne had to say as she concluded her remarks in the other place. She said, “I would say that S-211 seeks to make a modest contribution to a broader and longer-term objective”. This is, according to the senator, namely aligning our businesses “and economic activities with the imperatives of social and environmental sustainability.” She says, “Canada has made many commitments internationally, but we have yet to [translate] them in our [national] legislation.”

It is worth repeating that we are a little late. Senator Miville-Dechêne continued, “Canada is a rich, free and modern society” committed “in principle” to the defence of human rights. She says that if we are unable to act forcefully “to limit modern slavery practices in our supply chains, we...risk...losing the moral [stature] that we cherish”, and we would look like “hypocrites”. She states that does not want that.

So said my friend, Senator Miville-Dechêne, and I second her sentiments.

I am looking forward to questions, and I am also looking forward to an early referral of this bill to the foreign affairs committee. As I said, I look forward to what colleagues might say. I am thankful for their time and attention.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his hard work on the file. Also, I would like to recognize the all-party parliamentary group that has worked together on these issues as well as, of course, Senator Miville-Dechêne, who put the bill forward in the other place. Conservatives are supportive of Bill S-211. We are also supportive of being able to move quickly on the bill in light of the urgency on the issue.

There is one notable difference between Bill S-211 and a previous version, which is that the bill before us would impose obligations on government entities with respect to preventing forced labour in their supply chains, as well as on businesses. From the perspective of the Conservative Party, the inclusion of that obligation on government is very important. We should not be asking the private sector to do things in this regard if the government itself is not prepared to step up to do.

I wonder if the member could speak to the importance of government, in its own procurement, to step up as well.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, with respect to the all-party group, I too would like to acknowledge the willingness of many colleagues from the Conservative Party and the Bloc, and our friends in the NDP and the Liberal Party, to push forward a couple of important initiatives, with this being one of them. It has been quite effective in its advocacy.

Second, with respect to the inclusion of governments, we have gone through a period of time in the last two or three years when we may have sourced goods which we, in other instances, may not or would not have sourced. They were from dubious sources, shall we say. As I said in my speech, and as my hon. colleague repeated, we can hardly expect the public of Canada or corporate Canada to adhere to standards that we are not prepared to impose upon ourselves. We have, as a government, not just this government, but all governments, an ability to source and examine supply chains that many corporations do not. Therefore, I would like to hope that we as governments become leaders in this field rather than followers.