Debates of March 21st, 2023

International Trade

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, over the last number of years in particular, I have witnessed a great deal of advocacy within the chamber from all sides of the House in terms of dealing with the issue of forced labour in general and forced child labour in particular. I have found that we are now at a stage in which we have a department that is actually developing and looking at ways to bring in legislation.

Could my colleague provide his thoughts on how this issue of forced labour is something that offends members on all sides of the House?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the challenge that we face here, and what I find most offensive, is that we know all this. However, we do not act, and the government is still consulting. What is there to consult about on the exploitation of children? I do not understand that.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments and the direction he took in talking about the actions we can take, for example, on the enforcement side.

The member spoke about the CBSA urgently needing to update not only its collective agreement but also the number of employees who are working at border facilities. In Niagara, for example, when we did the ArriveCAN study, Mark Weber, the president of the union, mentioned our Rainbow Bridge. He said that instead of having 100 officers, it is staffed with only 48.

I think this is an important area where things that can be done should be done quickly. Could the member elaborate a little more on that?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from a fellow border colleague who knows the stress that the issue brings, and I thank him for his work on that.

Mark Weber was very clear in terms of what the CBSA and its members can do. With the proper training and supports, we can actually advance not only the protection of general society with regards to our border officers, with everything from gun control and a number of different initiatives on the drug response and so forth, but we can also do the same for businesses that want to compete fairly by intercepting illegal products or those actually manufactured under duress or through other types of measures. However, quite frankly, this needs boots on the ground. In fact, last summer, the CBSA had to go into forced vacation time and other initiatives because it did not have the proper staffing. So those are things we can control.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my excellent colleague from Windsor West for his intervention. I was not surprised by his point of view on this topic. I would like him to take it a bit further.

What can we do to be less dependent on the Chinese market? What can we do to make our supply chain more domestic? How can we do this without passing on costs to consumers? That is the big issue.

How can we be more resilient and increase local production in order to improve conditions for workers? They are affected by the supply chain. We also need to offer help for foreign countries that are often in difficult situations when it comes to child labour.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's work on our committee, where rights and fair balance are part of his regular work.

One thing I look at is Quebec and Montreal, where the textile industry was undermined by public policy through our trade agreements. These agreements actually allowed for a lot of the work to go to Jamaica historically, and now it has been offshored to China and other places at the expense of good workers, a good system in place and good quality. That is what we have to look towards: our trade agreements and following up.

If there are going to be supports, then we support, for example, child care, dental care and pharmacare. We support all the things that can actually subsidize the worker in the sense of making sure that any type of public money goes to training and the individual's well-being. In that way, governments will not just fund corporations and see the investment disappear to other areas; otherwise, we end up undermining ourselves by basically funding the competition.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, this is not the first time I have risen on the issue of forced labour and the impact it has had not only on Canadians but throughout the world. We have had a number of debates on this issue. It was not that long ago that we debated Bill S-211.

I know the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, whom I consider a dear friend, has put a great deal of effort into the issue of corporate responsibility and good behaviour for many years. It is well over a decade. I can recall being in the third party with the member when he talked about this, and sitting beside individuals like Stéphane Dion. We understood and wanted to deal with this issue, which is no doubt of critical importance.

One aspect that I always thought of was the way to get corporations to take certain actions as corporations. Individual board members were never really held accountable. There are many aspects in Bill S-211, but one of the aspects I liked was putting more responsibility on the board of directors so we could go after them for forced labour in general. We had very healthy debates on this issue.

What I find interesting is the way the Conservative Party has brought forward what we are debating. If I read the motion itself, which does not take long to read because it is pretty straightforward, it says the committee looks at the bill and comes back with a report. It is pretty straightforward. It states:

That the committee report to the House that it calls on the government to immediately take any and all actions necessary to prohibit the importation of any goods made wholly or in part with forced labour and develop a strategy to prevent the importation into Canada of any goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part with forced labour.

This report was tabled here weeks ago. I find it interesting that the Conservatives chose today to ask for concurrence in the report as opposed to just accepting it, because after all, I do not think there is anyone in this chamber who does not understand the importance of the issue, whether it is the Prime Minister or members of the opposition wanting to see something done on this file. I suspect the motivation for the debate today has more to do with preventing the NDP from bringing forward a concurrence motion on a PROC report. It is interesting that the Conservatives chose this particular topic. I understand the way the rules work in the chamber, and at the end of the day, I am always happy to talk about an issue that is so very important.

As for the motion itself, I would like to share something with members. I do not need to table it because it is public knowledge. The member across the way who introduced the motion asked what the government is doing. The parliamentary secretary spoke exceptionally well about how Canada, in many different fora, can play a leading role in dealing with the issue of forced labour and the impact it has on our supply chain. The Conservatives were very quick to scoff at that.

It is interesting to hear the Conservatives when they are in opposition versus when they are in government. When I posed a question to the member, I noted it is all fine and dandy to be so critical of the government and to make accusations that are not necessarily founded. I asked what the former government did, the Harper regime. The member mocked the question, of course, because Stephen Harper did not do anything.

I do not have a problem with contrasting that with what we have been able to do and deal with. The parliamentary secretary made reference to our international presence. What people do not necessarily recognize, which we should acknowledge, is that Canada, with a population base of 38 million people, carries an incredible amount of weight when it comes to international policy. We have seen that in many different ways.

I have always been a big fan of Lloyd Axworthy. If we look at the banning of land mines, an issue Lloyd Axworthy championed on behalf of the Government of Canada, and the success we were able to achieve, we again have to put that into the perspective of the world. The same principles apply for a wide variety of different issues, and this is one of those issues. Unlike the scoffing coming from the Conservative benches, I believe in what the parliamentary secretary who spoke before me said when he talked about the influence of standing up and speaking out, even in the presence of China.

We hear a lot about China, because it was the example and has been the example used. Whether it is the Uighurs or Tibetans, we recognize that, yes, there has been a great deal of exploitation. However, the government is not just talking about that on the floor of the House of Commons. We are talking about that internationally, even in the presence of China. That means the Government of China, and often Chinese officials, will be very irritated, but I believe it is a role that Canadians expect because it is a part of our values.

If we look at the sheer immigration numbers and the people who want to come to Canada, it is a very impressive thing. I believe that is because they look at the values and opportunities Canada has to offer, which translates into the House of Commons and the role we play not only domestically but internationally. That is the reason it is important that, whether it is the Prime Minister or a critic from the opposition party, if we have the opportunity to talk about Canadian values, this is the type of value we should be talking about.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the United Nations many years ago. It talks about the rights of children and their protection, and there are things we can do. That is one of the reasons why a few minutes back I made reference to a public document, which the parliamentary secretary made reference to earlier. I actually printed out a copy of it. It is the ministerial mandate letter for the Minister of Labour, authored by the Prime Minister. It provides instructions, and members who are watching or following the debate can easily look into it themselves by doing a simple Google search.

The letter that comes from the Prime Minister states:

As Minister of Labour, your immediate priorities are to work with federally regulated workplaces to ensure that COVID-19 vaccinations are enforced for those workers and to advance amendments to the Canada Labour Code to provide 10 paid days of sick leave for all federally regulated workers. I also expect you to work with federally regulated employers and labour groups, and with provincial and territorial counterparts, to make workplaces fairer and safer for everyone across the country as well as lead our efforts to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains.

To realize these objectives, I ask that you achieve results for Canadians by delivering the following commitments.

Then the letter lists a number of commitments, and this is one of them:

With the support of the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development—

I would like to emphasize this.

—introduce legislation to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and ensure that Canadian businesses operating abroad do not contribute to human rights abuses.

I challenge the member who chose to turn this into a political issue by saying the government has not done anything and who then went on to criticize Canada's border control. That is why I posed the question. In opposition, it sure is easy for the Conservative Party to be as critical as it wants, knowing full well that when it was in government it did absolutely nothing on this file.

Even during a pandemic and many other aspects like a war, we can see that this is a priority of the government. We have different departments coming together to provide legislation. Tell me where the former government had any interest in passing legislation. The Conservatives can talk about this, but their math is all messed up, as pointed out earlier after one member said it is eight years later. Sometimes it takes a little while to clean up the Conservative mess. We went on to have a pandemic, and now a war is taking place, but we have seen other budgetary measures and legislative measures, some of which have already been pointed out by a previous speaker. There is a very clear indication that we are developing legislation.

I will note something interesting in the EU:

On 14 September 2022, the European Commission presented a proposal for a regulation to prohibit products made using forced labour, including child labour, on the internal market of European Union (EU). The proposed legislation fits into the context of EU efforts to promote decent work worldwide.

I do not know all the details of this, but I think it is important for us to recognize that this is not just about Canada alone. Canada does work very closely with its partners, with its allied forces, the EU being one of them. That was referred to in 2022. The Prime Minister's letter to the minister was back in 2021. It does take time, as a great deal of consideration must be factored in. From a good governance, corporate perspective, companies want to ensure that supply chains are being supported by non-forced labour, and those that are prepared to put in that extra effort will ultimately have more security going forward.

I do not believe that Canada is alone. I believe it is working with other like-minded nations in recognizing the harm that forced labour causes. Forced labour takes many different forms. There is exploitation of individuals here today in Canada. When we think about exploitation of labour, we should not believe it is just something beyond our borders. There is a role for provinces in particular, along with the federal government, in looking at what is not only happening abroad but also happening here in Canada.

I know it exists. I have advocated consistently in the past against the exploitation of human beings. It is just wrong, and as parliamentarians we would like to make sure we are making progress in dealing with that. Human smuggling takes place, and it is pure exploitation, whether it is getting an individual into a factory or selling an individual for sexual services. Unfortunately, it is something that happens.

I believe the United Nations said that it could be as high as 10%. Members should not quote me on it, but I believe it is somewhere in that neighbourhood worldwide, with about 10% of the population of the globe being exploited in one form or another.

I mention children more than anything else because that is where my primary focus is, but there are other vulnerable groups, some more than others, that need to be taken into consideration. I like to believe that, as Canada continues to move forward on this file, we will continue to have healthy discussions. My colleague's legislation will be coming forward at some point in the future once the appropriate consultation has taken place.

I believe this is an issue that has been here since well before any of us have been around. I am not just talking about inside the House of Commons. I am talking in life in general. It is something that is not going to be cured overnight. At the end of day, we do have a responsibility, a responsibility that has been taken very, very seriously.

The government has seen the benefits of trade. Canada, more so than most countries around the world, is dependent on trade. It is dependent on exports and imports. It is not like we are a self-sufficient country in producing that does not require the importation of products. We are far from that. That is one of the reasons that, as we move forward, and we will move forward on this file, we do so in a way Canadians can get behind and support.

Interestingly enough, there was reference to the North America trade agreement. We saw, incorporated into that trade agreement, the issue of workers' rights and environmental concerns. As a government, we have signed off on more trade agreements than any other government before us because we recognize just how important trade is to our country. At the same time, we have very much taken a keen interest in the supply chain and getting rid of the exploitation of people. I believe we are going to see more effort on that issue in the coming months and years ahead.

With those few words, I am thankful for the opportunity to share some thoughts and look forward to any questions, if there are any.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify something. The government member seems to be saying that I said they have done nothing. I did not say that. I said they have done things. They passed an advisory for businesses. They have had a couple of talky-talky moments at international places. They have passed some legislation and other things, perhaps.

However, the result is nothing, so it is a lot of talk for absolutely no results. Canadians want results on this. The U.S. has seized 1,400 shipments totalling $1.3 billion and Canada has seized zero. All their talky-talky has actually produced no measurable, tangible results. They could do it very quickly. The U.S. has a list of companies. I have it. He could give it to the various ministers. He could cut and paste it and deliver it to CBSA. It is simple. It could be done tomorrow, and it would stop at least these goods from coming into the country. Why is it so hard for this member and the government to do it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member belittles the efforts that have been put into place. The Canada Border Services Agency has done fine work over the years in protecting the interests of Canadians.

We have actually invested more in the CBSA than the former government. I can assure members that we have done more in taking products off the market than Stephen Harper ever did during his 10-year period.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that there are international conventions, particularly to protect the rights of children.

In spite of that, every day, children still work for pennies a day in factories without adequate ventilation or health and safety protections. Too many of them continue to be beaten daily or have fines deducted from their salary for the tiniest mistakes. In short, they work in conditions similar to those prevalent over 100 years ago. All because a desire for profits led companies to outsource their manufacturing, in whole or in part, at the recommendation of very well-known consulting firms.

Yes, some steps were taken, but they remain insufficient as long as children, families and workers continue to live in the conditions that I described. Continuing to continue is, clearly, not enough.

My colleague mentioned the importance of doing more. What examples of concrete and conclusive measures for the future does Canada intend to implement to protect the 99% of the population being subjugated by the other 1%?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward, as I am sure the member opposite does, to the work the department of labour is currently doing to deal with the issue at hand. It is working with other departments and doing the essential consultations. We have to do those consultations, and it is a wide variety of consultations that have to take place. That work is being done, and I look forward to seeing some of the results of that work in the coming months and years ahead of us.

On the convention of rights for children, I think that, when we compare Canada to other nations in the world, we do exceptionally well, and we can play a very strong leadership role. That is why I indicated that Canada does often punch over its weight when it comes to ensuring human rights and the protection of children and vulnerable people by speaking out in the forums provided to do so, and we will continue to do that.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about leadership on the global stage. We know that Canada remains the only country in the world to have created a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. Another area of Canadian global leadership has been the environment.

I want to put to him a question that has not yet been injected in a comprehensive manner into today's debate. It is the idea that, when we are enforcing standards on Canadian enterprises operating abroad, those include environmental standards. How can that help with our work to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises an excellent point. That is one of the reasons why, when we take a look at the more recent trade agreements, we will see that there is an environmental component to them.

With the exception of the Conservative Party of Canada, everyone else seems to understand and appreciate that climate change is real, and that we do have to do things to protect our environment into the future. Incorporating the environment in our trade agreements sends a very strong message.

Also important are things such as the Paris conference, which took place back in 2015, when countries around the world came together to recognize that things such as the price on pollution are good things. At one time, even the Conservative Party supported it. There are many things we can do to enhance and promote a healthier environment as well.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a rare opportunity in this place to bring into sharp focus one reason the Government of Canada has consistently failed, regardless of who is in the PMO, to meet climate targets. The reason is directly related to the debate today, and it is trade rules. The World Trade Organization interceded.

We used trade sanctions that made the ozone protocol, the Montreal Protocol of 1987, work spectacularly well. In 1997, we negotiated Kyoto, and the difference was the interference by the World Trade Organization and trade ministers saying to environment ministers that they were not allowed to use enforcement mechanisms that work because the World Trade Organization and the trade ministers did not like that.

It was not a ruling, but I put to the House that we need to re-examine the ways in which the World Trade Organization has undercut the work of the Paris Agreement and, for that matter, the more recent work at COP15 in Montreal. Trade rules must not undermine global survival, any more than they must not be used to continually support forced labour and children's labour. We need to examine the trade rules and make them work for survival.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, never before have we seen the issue of our environment elevated to the degree it has been, not only here in Canada, but also in many places throughout the world.

There are some chronic abusers, and there are areas in which we could even improve here in Canada, but at least we have a government that is committed to making a difference. That is one of the reasons why we brought in legislation to ultimately achieve net zero. As a government, we recognize that something has to be done. As a government, we incorporated it into a trade agreement. As a government, we are constantly raising the issue of environment in trade over virtually all other issues. We recognize the importance of our environment.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to question the member opposite about Canada's record when it comes to fighting foreign human trafficking and modern-day slavery.

The United States seized 2,398 shipments suspected to be tied to forced labour and modern-day slavery, and Canada seized only one in that same amount of time. After it was contested, it let the shipment go through.

Does the member think that Canada is doing a good job of stopping forced labour coming through our border?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to compare apples to apples. The United States has a very different situation with human trafficking than Canada. We both have an issue in dealing with it and responsibilities.

I do not necessarily know all the details the member is making reference to. I suspect that he might be comparing apples to oranges.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do intend to split my time, but I just cannot quite notice the member I intend to split my time with, so when I get there and see the member, I will name his riding. It is possibly in the Wellington region.

I am glad to be joining this debate, because this is, for me, about the accountability of the government on the enforcement portion of passing legislation, regulations, rules and advisories that come from the work we do here, so it is about holding the government to account. Part of holding the government to account is doing the work the member for Dufferin—Caledon did. He believed the government was not doing enough to prevent goods made with forced labour from coming into our country, so we asked ourselves questions.

In this House, we have the option to ask an oral question during question period, or we can write a written question and then submit it to the government to respond to, and that is exactly what the member did. They are called Order Paper questions. They are written questions. One was Question No. 1112, which basically asked the government the very simple question of how many goods made with Uighur forced labour coming from the Xinjiang province were seized at the border since 2016 by the Canada Border Services Agency or the RCMP, and the answer was a big fat zero, nothing. The government had stopped one, but as the member before me from Peace River—Westlock commented on, it was then released.

In the same time, the United States government seized over 2,300 shipments of goods at the border, because that government was directed by the U.S. Congress to four specific areas that the Department of Homeland Security was told to watch for. It is on their website. Members can go on the website. In fact, the member for Dufferin—Caledon has repeatedly stated in the House that he has that list. I looked it up and I have the list, too. We would be happy to provide the government with the list, and then the Liberals could use it. This is great. This would be bipartisan co-operation. We are trying to help the government do its job. The Liberals could just come over to this side, and we would give them the list. There is even something called “electronic mail”. I do not know if members have heard of this. We could send them the email list and they could actually use it and adopt it.

The four areas the Department of Homeland Security said were of special concern were apparel, cotton, tomatoes and polysilicon. Based on those four categories or sectors they are especially concerned with, they have seized thousands of shipments of goods that were found to be using Xinjiang as the source region and Uighur forced labour.

Uighur forced labour has gone up in its use in the People's Republic of China since 2017. Those labour camps were established in 2017. There is a generalized acceptance that this is when that program started. The program was intentionally created by the Communist government in Beijing. It started early on. The level of repression has been going up since Xi Jinping was first elected in 2013. He is on his third term, and now likely his permanent term, as essentially a dictator in the People's Republic of China.

We can compare the timelines. The member for Dufferin—Caledon has done the investigative work a parliamentarian is supposed to do and has proven that the government has not been enforcing the rules or, if it has been enforcing them, it has been incredibly lax. It basically has not done anything.

Since then, we have had one government caucus member after another, and parliamentary secretaries, come out and give the best possible version of events. They really try incredibly hard. In the future, I hope never to be before a court, but if it ever comes to that, I would look to that side to find one of those members to defend me, because they really gave it the best possible face they could have. They talked about convening things, declarations, meetings they have had, advisories that were posted and attestations. People can click on the website and read the terms of reference about what they are not supposed to do, and they can click an attestation and move on. Actually, I was speaking to the member for Dufferin—Caledon, and based on attestations, the government's own officials say that nobody has been found guilty of breaking them and there has been no follow-up on this attestation.

This reminds me of a Yiddish proverb. It is a great one. I was looking for this one. It is from a book called Kvetch, so it took me a while to look it up and find it in there: “A drowning man will reach even for the point of a sword.” In this case, it proves the point we are making on this side of the House, that the Liberals have done nothing, if all they can point to is advisories, websites, web pages, an ombudsman, and attestations, which have not done much of anything.

We have a written question in the House with a response that says we have zero goods from this particular region, a region that is so egregious with its known violations of the human rights of the Uighur people that the United Nations has written successive reports on it. We have had rapporteurs go there, actual rapporteurs doing work on the ground and trying to ferret out what has been going on. It was Bachelet in this case. We have had repeat congressional hearings. We have had hearings in the different parliamentary committees of this House and in the United Kingdom as well. We know what is going on. We have heard the stories of the Uighur people.

I went online to see the People's Republic of China's response to the United Nations report. They said everything is okay and there is full employment in the Xinjiang province. They said everything is good and all laws are being respected. They especially drew attention to something on page 109 of their response, if anyone wants to read it, which says that the religious rights of the Uighurs are being respected. There are so many mosques outside of the Xinjiang region they can go to. There are nice pictures of very happy workers. I am sure all of them knew what was going to happen here.

I notice that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is getting ready to speak after me and add to my contributions. I will share my time with him.

That is the point. The government has reached for the sword and it is pointing to what we are pointing to, but it only has pretty words. It only has attestations and declarations, websites and web pages, while we have its own words showing the proof of its work, that it has done nothing since 2016. No goods have been stopped at the border and actually seized. As we said, one shipment was stopped but eventually released. The Americans have proof that they have actually obtained results, and we want results.

This reminds me of our sanctions regime. Equally, there have been members of the public who have come to testify before the Canada—People's Republic of China special committee of the House, and they have basically said that enforcement is lacking on the sanctions regime we have. I profess that I believe this is part of the sanctions regime we have against regimes of the world that do things we disagree with, where we find profound violations of people's human rights.

This House has found that the People's Republic of China is committing genocide against Turkic Uighurs in the Xinjiang province. The House has said that. In fact, the government was so inspired by its own principles that it abstained on that motion. It sent in a minister at the time, who has now resigned from this House, to say that they are abstaining as a government. As a cabinet, they are choosing to abstain on the matter. That is deeply embarrassing for them, and it should be embarrassing for them. It is embarrassing for all of us that they would do that.

We have passed a motion since then calling on the government to expedite this and ensure that another 10,000 Turkic Uighurs would be brought to Canada as refugees and that we would identify who they are. This is an incredibly important part of ensuring that we have accountability in the House. When the Liberals are not doing their jobs, they need to be raked over the coals for it.

If the Minister of International Trade has the time to hand out a sweetheart $25,000 contract to a friend, she has the time to expect that her cabinet, the rest of her colleagues and she herself are all doing the job that they were sent here to do. She was named to cabinet. She should be doing her job. We have proof that she is not. She is failing on the job to deliver the results that are needed. It has been seven years since 2016.

I just heard a member say that it is the pandemic. We blame the pandemic. When world trade was collapsing and fewer goods were being shipped, it is not as if the CBSA officers stopped doing their work. They were still on the job. It is not as if goods were being stopped all over the world at borders; we still had many goods coming into the country.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are giving me the signal. I almost wish I had not shared my time with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I could have used the extra 10 minutes to lambaste the government for its failure.

We owe it to the people in Xinjiang province to ensure that we have a regime in place that stops goods at the border and seizes the goods made with their labour. The Americans have done it. Other western governments have done it. We have the results showing that by the government's own accounting, it has not done it. It is a shame.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives make a great deal of reference to China. On all issues, they tend to focus a lot of attention on China. What does the member suggest the Conservative Party, in general, would do in dealing with China when it comes to the issue of trade, given that there was a secret trade agreement that was signed with the former prime minister of Canada? Can he provide his thoughts on what kinds of consequences there should be for China generally, based on the comments that we are hearing today from the Conservatives?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is actually quite simple to answer. I would turn to the member for Dufferin—Caledon and ask him for the electronic list that the Department of Homeland Security has of companies sourcing forced labour goods and trying to ship them in, and I would give it to the CBSA. It is pretty simple.

Also, the particular treaty the member is referring to is not secret; it is a public document that was approved by the House.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been reading Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words. It is a fascinating book, and I have been studying it very closely. It has such goods words, like “aspirational”, “drill down” and “recontextualize”. However, I would ask my hon. colleague about the term “move on”. I would like to quote this so I get it correct: “Going-forward basis: It is a popular form of escape from responsibility, accountability or discomfort, much favoured by cads, con men and carpetbaggers, etc.”, as in “Let's not dwell on the past”, “Let's not wallow in the lens of history”, “Let's not waste public money setting up inquiries”, “Let's not waste time arguing about who said what and whether or not they meant it.”

I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he thinks that the advice we are getting from Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words might help give clarity to the debate that we have been having in the House for the last few weeks.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which book the member is referring to. I kind of missed that part. I did catch the word “inquiry”, though, and I notice that we are still waiting to hear how the New Democrats intend to vote on our motion to call the Prime Minister's chief of staff to testify before a committee of the House.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is an advisory that has been put out by the Government of Canada that says, “The Government of Canada is deeply concerned by reports and documentary evidence of repression of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities by Chinese authorities”.

The U.S. version says, “The People’s Republic of China (PRC) government continues to carry out genocide and crimes against humanity against Uyghurs and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (Xinjiang), China. The PRC’s crimes against humanity include imprisonment, torture, rape, forced sterilization, and persecution”.

I wonder if the member could comment on why the Government of Canada's approach to this, including not seizing any goods, is seemingly so at odds with our number one ally and trading partner.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. He named some of the crimes that we see happening against the Turkic Uighur people in the Xinjiang province, which have really ramped up since 2017, the start of these formal labour camps that the regime in Beijing keeps referring to as “vocational schools”, typically. That is kind of the nomenclature it uses. As someone of Polish heritage, I am pretty used to this from Communist regimes. They give everything weird names. “Potemkin village” comes to mind as well. This is consistently done by regimes like this.

We should be aligned in this case with our partners in the USMCA, who have done a much better job, especially the Americans, in enforcing the rules. If we are going to take this to heart, we have to enforce the sanction regimes passed by the House.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the answer we were given earlier, that consultations are being held on the steps to be taken to improve the forced labour situation, that is to say to eradicate it.

With respect to children, the Convention on the Rights of the Child was signed on November 20, 1989, or almost 34 years ago. They have had 34 years for consultations, so we wonder if they are asking all eight billion people on earth what concrete steps should be taken.

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about this.