Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member called the legislation a joke—
House of Commons Hansard #371 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was goods.
House of Commons Hansard #371 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was goods.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member called the legislation a joke—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I am sorry, but that is a point of debate and not a point of order.
The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon has about 30 seconds to wrap up.
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Madam Speaker, the Liberals passed a terrible piece of legislation. I voted for it, because at least it was better than the garbage the Liberals have delivered over these years. I do not know how that member sits there. You have allowed billions of dollars of goods made with forced labour to come into Canada, and you stand there and laugh. Your government is corrupt. It is a disgrace—
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member is pointing directly to me and saying “you”. I can assure the member that I do nothing at the border. In fact, I support good legislation—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
There was a point of order, and I will entertain that point of order, but then it became a point of debate.
I will indicate to the hon. member that I was going to let him finish wrapping up, because that is where we were at, but he knows full well that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair. Also, the hon. parliamentary secretary knows that he had an opportunity to ask a question, but then kept interrupting the member while he was speaking. He knows full well that, if he is not recognized, he is not to respond until it is time for questions and comments.
The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.
Louis-Philippe Sauvé Bloc LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. Conservative colleague for his speech, which he embellished with the words of Shakespeare himself. We saw earlier that the Liberal government remains committed to working. However, when my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue asked the Conservative member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord whether a future Conservative government would commit to introducing a bill on forced labour, he did not get an answer.
I would therefore like my hon. Conservative colleague to tell me whether the Conservative Party of Canada would commit to introducing a bill on this issue if it were to take power someday.
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Madam Speaker, yes, we will absolutely eliminate forced labour from our supply chains, as opposed to this government that pretends it is going to and had a minister charged in their mandate letter to introduce legislation to get forced labour out of our supply chains, but no minister has done that. Instead, it relies on some private member's bill from a random backbench Liberal and says that it has actually done something.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, while we are talking about forced labour in Canada's supply chains, I want to talk about what is happening here at home.
We had the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery comment. She highlighted that the temporary foreign worker program in Canada is being used as modern-day slavery by some bad players. Now, in my hometown of Port Alberni, 15 temporary foreign workers had the courage to come forward, after working long hours and not getting paid overtime, not getting paid the wages they were promised and having no running water with 15 men living in a trailer, although there were initially 30 of them, exposed to unsafe working conditions. This was a company that the Conservative leader cozied up to and did a big photo shoot with. Guess what? When this became public, he was nowhere to be found to stand up for these workers.
Will the member condemn the San Group for what it did and how it mistreated these workers? We stand in this House and condemn what it did to those workers.
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Madam Speaker, it is well known how the temporary foreign worker program has been turned into a disaster by this NDP-Liberal government. What is amazing to me is the member from the NDP, and all the other NDP members, who could actually bring the abuse of this program to a halt. They could stop all of the corruption that is going on if only they had the guts to vote no confidence in this government. Instead, they continue to prop up this moribund, corrupt Liberal government every chance they get.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni had an opportunity to ask a question. If he has any more to add, he needs to wait until the appropriate time. It is not respectful to be trying to interject while someone else has the floor.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Prince Albert.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Madam Speaker, I can see that you are upset today, and I do not blame you; Canadians are upset with this debate we are having today. The fact that we are having this debate has Canadians upset because they thought this was being taken care of. They thought this issue was being addressed by legislation. Canadians would not believe what is going on and what has been going on at our borders and how the current government has broken our border system and broken our systems altogether.
I rise today to speak to this very important issue regarding forced and child labour in the supply chains and why the government must do more to rid the country of this problem.
Before I begin, I will give a bit of history. On January 1, the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act, known as the supply chains act, came into effect. It was not a great bill, but at least it was something. I was happy to see this private member's bill pass, as I voted for it along with nearly everyone in this House. That bill was the first step in Canada's long road to ridding our supply chains of forced labour and child labour. By asking the government departments and private businesses if their supply chains carry a risk of forced or child labour, we can begin to properly measure the size of the problem and take steps toward a solution.
In this scenario, we are just talking about finding a benchmark. We are just trying to see how big the problem possibly could be. I will compare it to what my friend from Dufferin—Caledon, the shadow minister for labour, talked about in regard to what has been going on in the U.S. The Americans are not just identifying; they are actually taking action. We are at least identifying the issue. In the case of the supply chains act, identifying a risk of forced labour means that the government department or business determines there is some possibility that forced or child labour might have been used. However, what was learned by implementing the supply chains act is that Canada was late to the table. Numerous other jurisdictions have already implemented forced labour laws. This list includes the United Kingdom Modern Slavery Act, the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act and the Australian Modern Slavery Act. Many of our closest allies and trading partners drew the world's attention to the problem of modern slavery in supply chains and passed meaningful legislation to work toward a solution, but the current government took nearly six years to finally pass legislation and still fails to meaningfully enact it.
The Canada supply chains act took numerous years to become law. It was first proposed in 2021 and only received royal assent on January 1, 2024. The government was well aware of its pending implementation. In fact, many Liberals voted for this bill, including the Prime Minister himself. With near-unanimous consent by members of the government, supported by His Majesty's loyal opposition, and three committee hearings at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the government members cannot plead ignorant to the issue of forced labour in supply chains.
That then leads me to the matter we are debating here today: the government's failure to propose meaningful legislation that rids the supply chains of forced labour once and for all. Today's motion, that the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade presented on Wednesday, October 30 be concurred in, is an embarrassment for the current Liberal government. What we are debating here today is for the government to acknowledge that it has been dragging its heels with respect to implementing meaningful legislation that would combat forced labour.
Unfortunately, Bill S-211, while a positive step forward, is a limited step forward. It was limited in its mandate and, through the reports submitted by the Department of Public Safety, we have learned the Government of Canada and private businesses have a glaring problem. It was not as if the government was not aware of this, though. In the Liberals' budget presented in March 2023, the Liberal government indicated its intention to introduce anti-forced labour legislation by the end of 2024. The Liberals then followed up this spring with a statement and repeated themselves in the latest budget presentation in March, again indicating they wish to present anti-forced labour legislation by the end of 2024. It is now November 19 and there is no legislation in sight.
This is a grave dereliction of duty as it is the government's legislation that is required to fix this problem. Ignorance of the problem here is no excuse; it is simply laziness and incompetence. The Liberal government has been aware of the problem for years. Its own ministers voted on the topic in two budgets in 2023 and 2024. It was indicated that it was a priority for the government and yet, nothing has happened. In the meantime, we have received government reports from the Department of Public Safety demonstrating the scale of the issue and the number of government departments that have identified a risk of forced or child labour in their supply chains. This is unacceptable.
I would like to make clear just how significant the problem of forced labour is in our Canadian supply chains and to do this, it is important to look at the statistics on the matter. Before I jump into those, I would ask my colleagues in the House to remember what we are really discussing here today. Modern slavery is not a singular problem. These are individuals and, in many cases, children who are victims of an abusive system. The supply chains act, Bill S-211, mandates the Government of Canada to prepare an annual report highlighting the prevalence of forced and child labour in the supply chain. With responses by government departments, agencies and private businesses, the Minister of Public Safety is responsible for tabling an annual report to Parliament.
This past September 30, we received the government's inaugural report, and it was not positive. In the report entitled “2024 Annual Report to Parliament on the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act”, the Minister of Public Safety outlined the degree to which the government sourced supplies that carry the risk of forced labour. This is the report, a very damning report, excuse use my language, to the government, as the statistics will tell us.
In 2024, 17.2%, of government institutions had identified that parts of their activities and supply chains had a risk of forced labour or child labour being used. Almost 20% of the government's own departments identified the possibility of child labour or slavery being used in their supply chains, the people they buy from.
Some 37.9% of government institutions started the process of identifying the risks, but highlighted that there were still gaps in the assessment. That tells us that a good chunk of departments still have not even done a full assessment at this point in time, yet almost 20% of those supply chains are at risk of using forced or child labour.
Some 44.8% had not started the process of identifying risks at all. That means 44% of government departments have not even gone through the process that they are mandated to do. We are getting stats of 17.2% of the supply chains for government without 44% of them even reporting. What is the actual number? It is disgusting, declaringly horrible, and yet the government has done nothing to fix it.
To remedy the glaring issue that 17.2% of government departments that identified risk of forced labour in their supply chains, only two government institutions indicated they had implemented actions to prevent forced or child labour and associated harms from reoccurring. In all the government departments, only two are doing something, meaning there are numerous government institutions that are aware they have forced or child labour problems and have not done anything.
However, what I find even more concerning is that while responding to the questions was mandatory, again 44.8% of government institutions did not even start the process of identifying risks in their supply chain. Ignorance of the law excuses no one. “The head of every government institution must, on or before May 31 of each year, report to the Minister on the steps the government institution has taken during its previous financial year to prevent and reduce the risk that forced labour or child labour is used at any step of the production of goods produced, purchased or distributed by the government institution.” This is a direct quote from Bill S-211. That is what the Minister of Public Safety himself voted for. Why has he not enforced the laws he is mandated to enforce?
To conclude, it is beyond unacceptable that the Liberal government is not giving the attention that is required to remove forced labour from our supply chains. It is beyond unacceptable that the government continues to drag its heels on meaningful legislation that would rid our supply chains of forced labour. It is beyond unacceptable that 17% of government institutions had identified parts of their activities and supply chains that carry a risk of forced labour or child labour being used. It is beyond unacceptable that only two government institutions are trying to do something about it. The fact that 44% of government institutions could just opt out of reporting is also horrible, and it is ridiculous that the minister failed to do his job.
In fact, it is quite telling how little the government cares about removing forced and child labour that its own ministers and departments missed mandatory deadlines and failed to report information they are required to report. Forced and child labour in our supply chains has been identified as a leading issue by our allies. It is time we take it seriously. The impact this has on those who are exploited is unimaginable. Vulnerable people and children are victims of the government's inattentiveness and claiming that it did not know is inexcusable and, frankly, untrue.
It is time the government take the issue of forced labour and child labour seriously, and remove it from the government procurement process and our store shelves. We can see there are lots of things to talk about regarding this issue and there is not enough time. I have not even talked about the implications on trade and what it means to our allies when we are laggards.
The government is going around the world preaching to everybody about something while doing nothing about it here at home. This is another example of the government saying that they are going to do something but never actually accomplishing anything.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and his sensitivity. This major issue is a disgrace to Canada and the entire world. We must find ways to take action and change things.
My question is very simple. Will a future Conservative government commit to introducing the bill that the Liberals have been refusing to introduce for the past two years and since coming to power nearly a decade ago?
If we want things to change, we need a bill.
Will the Conservatives commit to introducing one?
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Madam Speaker, it is not just about passing legislation. It is about having the ability to enact the legislation. We have a piece of legislation that has already passed, and they are not even acting on it. It is sitting there.
That is one thing that is different between Conservatives and Liberals. Liberals talk. They will talk and talk. We take action. When we say we are going to do something, we are going to do it. We stand behind our words. When it comes to forced labour, yes, we would see legislation brought in on forced labour. Not only that, we would see action to get it out of our supply chains.
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed to hear the member talk about the piece of legislation the Liberals already passed, and I was disappointed to see the Conservatives vote in favour of it. Bill S-211 was an empty bill and it was criticized by Amnesty International. It was criticized by Human Rights Watch. It was criticized by the international organizations that are working on the ground to try to end forced labour and to ensure human rights are upheld around the world.
I want to ask about contemporary slavery here at home. The United Nations special rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery has called the temporary foreign worker program a “breeding ground” for this kind of abuse. Some examples are wage theft, excessive work hours, limited breaks and physical abuse. Can the member speak to the urgency of not only addressing the horrific violations around the world but also addressing them here at home in Canada?
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Madam Speaker, those are two great questions. I will start off with the first one on Bill S-211. It is not a great piece of legislation. We agree with them on that. The reality is that it is a piece of legislation that gives us some benchmarks and some reporting tools to get a sense of how bad the problem is here in Canada. What we have seen is in the government's own departments, and 17.2% of them have child or forced labour as part of their supply chains. We would not have known that without Bill S-211. They would not have reported it or have been forced to report it. While not perfect, the legislation at least gives us some data we can move forward with and puts more accountability on the minister to see results.
In regard to the temporary foreign workers program, I have many examples of businesses that are using the program that are models. It has worked for both the employees and the employer, and it has been good for everybody involved. There are always some bad actors. There are always some bad examples, and we have to put in place the appropriate rules to get rid of those bad apples so it does not happen again.
International TradeCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the discussion on Bill S-211 because it was legislation for which both the government and the Conservatives saw merit in passing. Today, we see many fruits from that. We are talking about thousands of companies that have now reported in because of that legislation. Through that, we have a very good sense of the degree of the depth of the issue. As a result, the discussions that preceded the writing of the bill that we will be seeing before the end of the year were well informed.
I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the important role Bill S-211 played in helping Canadians better understand the situation and that there are going to be ramifications.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Madam Speaker, the reality is that the Liberals knew it was a problem a long time ago. They did not need Bill S-211 to bring in legislation that would have done something to reduce the problem of forced labour. They could have taken action similar to what the U.S., Australia and the U.K. have done, but they chose not to.
When they brought in Bill S-211 and they started looking at the benchmarks, 44% of the government departments did not even report. Can the member tell me why that is? That is not acceptable. It is in the legislation that they have to report, yet they have not. Out of the 56% that did report, we know that 17.2% of their supply chains have forced labour in them.
The Liberals know they have a problem. They have had a problem within their own government institutions and their own procurement process, and they have done nothing to fix it. Only two departments have actually taken actions to try to curb this. The rest have put their heads in the sand, and the ministers have done nothing. In reality, they have done nothing to fix this problem. They have the data in front of them. They have had it for years. Where is the legislation? It is November. I still do not see it.
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Madam Speaker, I must admit I am a little surprised that this is being discussed on the floor of the House today. I would have liked to have prepared a bit more, but here we are.
I am, surprise, surprise, the obscure backbencher who put forward Bill S-211. I thought I would share with hon. members and the public at large the journey, the four- or five-year journey, to this point when we are saying whatever it is that we are saying.
The concept of the bill was introduced to me at least four or five years ago, when World Vision sponsored some British legislators to come to Canada to talk about their version of this kind of transparency bill. I was kind of attracted to the idea. I thought it was a good idea, so I thought to myself, well, let us put together a piece of legislation.
We put together a piece of legislation and, of course, the process being the process that it is around here, the legislation died on the Order Paper, and we had an election, so that went nowhere. Then I did it again in the interim between 2019 and 2021, and it, too, went nowhere.
Meanwhile, both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party decided that this was something that should be in a platform. If we read the platforms of both parties, the commitments mirror Bill S-211 by some considerable measure. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals thought that transparency legislation would be good.
By this time, we thought maybe we should get a little bit smarter and introduce the legislation in the Senate. Then we would not be hampered by the peculiar rules of the House of Commons, where there is an order of precedence, and if a member is unlucky, their legislation is at the bottom of the order of precedence. However, if the member is lucky, they are at the top and get a chance to run a piece of legislation through the House during a mandate.
Then 2021 came along, and it was in both parties' platforms. We had a draft bill on order, ready to go. Indeed, four cabinet ministers had this kind of legislation in their mandate, and, arguably, this kind of legislation would have fulfilled the mandate obligations in their mandate letters.
We took the bill and made it a stronger piece of legislation than that in England, Australia or California. Canada went from laggard to leader in the process. We started the bill in the Senate this time, as the Senate does not have the peculiar rules of this place, and we were fortunate to be able to get the bill dealt with in an expeditious manner, virtually without amendment. Then it came here.
When it came up on the Order Paper, we had virtually the unanimous consent of members, and I think it was a unanimous vote, to move the bill from the floor of the House to committee.
Then we had other parties, particularly the Bloc and the NDP, wanting to bolt onto the bill a whole bunch of things, which broadly could be described as due diligence. In simple language, due diligence in this case essentially meant that, if one discovers the supply chain flaw, they actually have to fix it. That is in the legislation that is in Germany and in France. It is an appearance of a good idea without actually being a good idea.
The immediate consequence of comparing due diligence in France with Canadian transparency legislation is that it would eliminate 98% of Canadian companies because the threshold for the French legislation was companies with at least 5,000 employees. Canada does not have that many companies with 5,000 employees. Because all the companies below that threshold would not have any obligation to comply with anything, we would have had an appearance of doing something good when the reality was something else, so we resisted the notion that we could bolt on due diligence legislation to this transparency bill.
We did make it a transparency bill on steroids because, unlike what was done with the Australian or English legislation, we brought in obligations to government entities, the theory being that we cannot tell people what to do and then not do it ourselves. If I have a disappointment, as my friend previous alluded to, it is that I wish that, in the final report, the government entities, and they are not just federal government entities but Canadian government entities, would have complied at a more vigorous rate than they ended up doing. However, we put that into the bill.
The other thing that was really unique about this bill that gave it some more teeth was that we obligated the senior leadership of the entity to sign the report. When a CEO or CFO signs a report, it becomes a public document. The consequence of becoming a public document is that various other entities read it. Suddenly, if one is borrowing $100 million, the bank will read their supply chain report. If we had not put that in, one could say whatever they wanted to say. Now one has to have a sign-off from the CEO or CFO and it becomes a board obligation in the same way that, if one files a prospectus, one has to say that the statements in it are true and swear that those statements are true. Therefore, in the ultimate implementation of the legislation, which was over 6,000 entities, there were a lot of lawyers and a lot of compliance officers reviewing these statements for their truthfulness and accuracy. It became a pretty interesting disclosure of a significant amount of data.
When we went to the committee, we lost the support of the Bloc and the NDP, who in my judgment made foolish decisions about bolting onto a piece of legislation something the legislation was not designed for in the enthusiasm to run before one walks or finding perfection before one gets to the good. We then got it to the House for the final debate. The Conservative Party and the Liberal Party supported the bill. The cabinet supported the bill, and it received royal assent in May of 2023.
Then there was a period of time between May 2023 and the coming into force date of January 1, 2024, when guidance was written on how to report. There were extensive consultations with the industry writ large, the entities that would be caught by this legislation. I attended a number of seminars. I know that public safety gave a number of seminars. The information was collated and the drafting of the expectations of the report was put together somewhere about this time last year. That is probably where it ultimately landed.
It came into force on January 1 of this year. The first reporting period was May of this year, and to my surprise, over 6,000 entities responded. The trouble is that we do not know out of how many. Maybe 10,000 entities should have responded. That is one of the flaws in the report.
The report was then tabled in September of this year. I have it on my table here. One thing that is disturbing about it is that 38% of the entities that responded confirmed they had identified that parts of their activities and supply chains carried the risk of forced labour, which means that 38% of 6,000 filing entities say they think they have a problem. These are the entities that responded. We have no information on those that did not respond.
The Speaker and I have spoken personally about this before. Canada has a significant problem with slave products in our supply chains. We are all members of a larger Canadian society, and we need to deal with this issue. I would urge colleagues to urge the government to disaggregate this data so that we know what problem we have. Also, as members have alluded to, we have a problem at the border. It is a real problem, a personal problem, and not only that, but it is becoming an international trade problem. One can be reasonably assured that this will come up in future negotiations for the USMCA and with various other trade groups.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time to put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
Use of Props in the House—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
November 19th, 2024 / 1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 18, 2024, by the member for Edmonton Strathcona regarding the wearing of lapel pins in the House.
During Oral Questions that day, the Chair cautioned all members to be mindful in this regard. The member for Edmonton Strathcona argued that pins are regularly worn in the House without them being considered props. The Chair undertook to consider the matter and return to the House. Other members also intervened briefly on this matter.
Using visual displays of any kind to illustrate remarks or to emphasize positions in the House is normally considered a breach of decorum. Typically, members are called to order by the Chair when they use displays that cause disorder, no matter what message is conveyed. This extends to the wearing of buttons and lapel pins.
As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 618:
While political buttons and lapel pins have not been considered exhibits as long as they do not cause disorder, the Speaker has interrupted a division to request that certain Members remove “props” from their lapels.
In a ruling on a similar matter, Deputy Speaker Savoie stated on June 23, 2011, at page 980 of the Debates:
We are in a grey zone because in many cases some buttons or scarves have been allowed. It seems to me from reading the precedents that the test is whether they cause disorder, and apparently they have this evening. I would ask that the buttons be removed.
As several members pointed out, including the members for Edmonton Strathcona and Kitchener Centre, there are sometimes situations where members of all parties wear pins, ribbons or displays to show their support for a particular cause and this elicits no reaction. In other cases, objections are raised as some feel they are being used as props to emphasize a political point about which there is some disagreement.
The Chair is in no way commenting on the worthiness of any particular cause, as I know members, as do all Canadians in general, hold strong views on a variety of subjects. However, our practice in this place is that members express their points of view through their words and their votes rather than through displays. Therefore, the litmus test just described, that is, whether a button or a pin causes disorder, will continue to guide the Chair in enforcing this rule of decorum.
Now, given the wide scope of interpretation involved, the Chair seeks the co-operation of all members to be judicious in choosing to wear buttons or pins and to be equally judicious in choosing to raise their concern with the Chair. I ask all members for their co-operation in this regard.
The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable on a point of order.
