Mr. Speaker, I move that the 21st report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Wednesday, October 30, be concurred in.
The number of shipments seized at Canadian customs, all regions combined, for use of forced labour is zero. That does not include the one shipment that was seized in 2021 and then released following an appeal by the importer. In comparison, Washington seizes billions of dollars' worth of goods, and all from a single region, Xinjiang.
Canada is absolutely lax. In March 2023, Ottawa released its budget. It announced the government's intention to “introduce legislation by 2024 to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains to strengthen the import ban on goods produced using forced labour.” This is written in black and white on page 171 of the English version and page 192 of the French version. Until proven otherwise, we are in 2024. No bill was introduced before the end of 2023. This is another promise broken and a promise immediately rehashed.
In March 2024, in its new budget, Ottawa indicates yet again its intention “to introduce legislation in 2024 to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and to strengthen the import ban on goods produced with forced labour.” Again, it is written in black and white. No need to believe me, anyone can read it on page 369 of the French version and page 320 of the English version.
I had this motion adopted in committee to ensure that members could call out this broken promise and find it unacceptable and to stress that time is of the essence. The motion was not supported by the parties, it was adopted by the majority in committee. The Conservatives voted in favour of the motion and so did the NDP. Now, we are moving the motion in the House because there is a month left. The House must clearly state that it considers this inaction to be deplorable and that the use of practices that violate the fundamental rights of workers, vulnerable people and children is totally unacceptable.
I remind you once again that, in March 2023, they said the same thing, that they would present something before the end of the year. I proposed a motion before the Standing Committee on International Trade suggesting that we write a letter to the government to remind it of its commitment to introduce a bill before 2023 and demand an explanation for its inaction. This motion was unanimously adopted, but it was never acted on. The government did not deign to reply.
This same government then shamelessly did a cut-and-paste in its next budget, as if it were business as usual, simply changing “end of 2023” to “end of 2024”. It simply changed the deadline before which it would not even think of lifting a finger. We have had it. Parliament must stand up and clearly state, by adopting our motion, that this will not work this time. Consumers do not want blood on their hands.
I will make a few comparisons. United States Customs and Border Protection has the power to refuse waivers for goods it reasonably believes were manufactured through forced labour. These refusals can target a company, a region or a country.
What follows is important. The onus is on the importers to convince United States Customers and Border Protection that the goods were not made through forced labour. In addition, in December 2021, the United States passed a law preventing forced labour by Uyghurs, which creates a rebuttable presumption that all imported goods, products, items and merchandise grown, mined, produced or manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region, or by companies that appear on a list prepared by the U.S. government are manufactured through the use of forced labour and are denied entry into the United States.
They take for granted that everything that comes from the list or the region comes from forced labour. The importer bears the burden of proof, because the United States' rebuttable presumption also applies to goods manufactured in or shipped to China and other countries that include materials or inputs manufactured in Xinjiang or that transit that country. The burden of proof is therefore on the importer.
In Canada, we just have the customs tariff as the legislative framework that allows customs officials not to consider goods as banned, but rather to determine the tariff classification of the imported goods. This is done on a case-by-case basis, based on the likelihood that forced labour was used according to the information available at the time of importation. Therefore, giving the Canada Border Services Agency the responsibility of screening goods amounts to assuming that the use of forced labour to produce those goods can be determined by a flashlight inspection of the cargo. That is really what that means. The brilliant result of this approach is that nothing has ever been seized at the Canadian border. The federal government allows companies to act with virtual impunity.
This applies not just to imports, but, if we consider a broader spectrum and perspective, it also applies to behaviours, accountability and due diligence of Canadian firms abroad. In 2023, the House of Commons passed, by a majority, BillS-211. At the time, Ottawa framed this as a bold move, but at the end of the day it has proven to be toothless. The only thing the bill did was introduce a reporting requirement but only for businesses with 250 or more employees with significant active income. They are only required to prepare a small annual report on the measures taken on forced labour and child labour. That is the only matter covered here. Some will say that a business that refuses to produce this report could be fined, and that is certainly true, but there is nothing stopping a business from putting out a report stating that it did not take any measures. It can simply send that off and it has met its requirement, full stop. It can do the same thing the following year too. That is the extent of it. I would argue that this law is as useless as the Senate that created and introduced it. Producing a report, even one stating that nothing was done, does not exactly amount to a due diligence law.
What we have here is a typically Canadian attitude, reflecting the same culture of symbolism. Ottawa would have been completely free to sit on its purported laurels, had there been any laurels to sit on. That is why I voted against this empty shell of a bill at the time, along with my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and the NDP.
Instead, I am co-sponsoring Bill C-262, which comes from the NDP. We have always said that when the idea is good, we will have no problem supporting it, and so I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill, which covers all human rights and businesses of all sizes. It seeks to involve the affected communities and, above all, it provides recourse to the victims. That is what an actual due diligence law to address the matter would look like.
Ottawa may not carefully screen goods entering the country through its approach, which makes customs officers responsible for seizures and removes the onus of proof from importers, but, as I have just shown, it is no more serious about the behaviours of Canadian firms abroad. This is also evident in the trade agreements submitted to us. Lofty principles are bandied about, but without any obligations attached. Ideas and international conventions are referenced, but there are no obligations or genuine accountability. For example, in the case of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, the only amendment received in committee was mine. It stated that this chapter was fine and good, but the Minister of International Trade should have to report annually to the House on what is going on over there in terms of human rights and corporate behaviour.
The same applies to this office called the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise. Basically, it is a complaints bureau, a pretty apathetic response to some truly scandalous behaviour. Its mandate is to “review a complaint that is submitted by a Canadian company that believes it is the subject of an unfounded human rights abuse allegation”.
When the position was created in 2018, the Canadian government pledged that this officer would have the investigative powers to require businesses to produce documents and to compel them to testify. Both of these powers strike me as important in the case of an inquiry. I would even say that they are fundamental. As I stand here today, these powers have yet to be assigned.
In fact, the Mining Association of Canada is opposed to this and declared it in a public statement. We take comfort in the fact that the ombudsperson has a lovely website, but we would prefer the office to have the capacity to require entities to produce documents and compel their testimony.
In 2009, a Bloc bill seeking the creation of an extraterritorial activities review commission for Canadian businesses died on the Order Paper. This politically independent commission would not have simply received complaints but would have been able to launch its own inquiries. Even without a complaint, it could have launched its own inquiries and publicly called on the Department of Foreign Affairs to withdraw its support of offending mining corporations. This would have represented a truly effective mechanism. Unsurprisingly, Parliament did not go along with it.
I myself attempted, in my capacity as member, to file a motion seeking the unanimous consent of the House of Commons to establish a genuine institution to monitor the behaviours of Canadian businesses abroad. Needless to say, the motion did not receive unanimous consent.
If I bring up the mining companies, it is because I find them particularly interesting. Even though Canada can be characterized as an imperialistic, colonial and world-dominating country, it is still a sieve, a haven for foreign interests. Today, roughly three-quarters of the world's mining companies are Canadian, and the vast majority of them are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, meaning they can speculate on the value of mines. Canada is just a flag of convenience for companies, who need only open a post office box to be considered Canadian. A number of these mining companies are Canadian in name only. To take advantage of Ottawa's lax legislation, any investor can found their company with Canadian joint shareholders, but can conduct mining operations in a developing country.
A number of businesses with questionable behaviours receive financial support from Export Development Canada, whose accountability mechanisms are very limited. Its representatives were questioned in committee. Let us say that they do not exactly dig deep to learn where the money is going. There is also diplomatic support on the part of Canadian embassies.
In a report published in 2022, the Justice and Corporate Accountability Project mentions, for example, serious acts of violence at the Marlin mine in Guatemala. This mine was acquired in 2006 by Goldcorp, a Canadian mining company. There were credible allegations of environmental contamination and harm to human health. According to the report, the activities of certain Canadian public servants in 2010 and 2011 seeking to defend the interests of Goldcorp undermined the efforts of communities, mostly Mayan indigenous communities, to access the inter-American human rights system and its support to defend their rights. Canada is therefore providing both diplomatic and financial support.
While Canada is currently negotiating a free trade deal with Ecuador, we might ask why the Canadian ambassador there has refused to meet with the country's indigenous businesses but immediately agreed to meet with mining representatives. He did not have a problem with that. That same ambassador, who did not seem to appreciate my questions when he came to testify before the Standing Committee on International Trade, frequently rolling his eyes, even rejected the concerns of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights about the troubling unrest in two regions where police repression was especially abusive, particularly to ensure the imposition of Canadian mining investments suspected of having an impact on water contamination and social division.
There is another case, which made the news a few weeks ago, concerning the behaviour of Barrick Gold, another Canadian mining company, in Tanzania. We keep seeing examples of this. It is a serious issue. We hear about the eviction of villagers and other outrageous incidents. In November 2022, legal action was brought against Barrick Gold in Ontario following allegations of brutal murders, shootings and torture committed by police officers responsible for watching the mine. This is the seventh case of human rights violations filed by foreign plaintiffs against a Canadian mining company since 2010.
Since 1997, nine complaints have been filed in Canadian courts against mining companies following allegations surrounding their activities abroad. These cases involve assault, shootings, gang rapes of local indigenous women by the mine's security officers, the use of slaves, and the contamination of a river with mining waste.
During human rights missions to Chile in 2020 and Colombia in 2021, I was able to hear first-hand accounts from affected communities detailing water pollution, air contamination, security militias firing on civilians at point-blank range and evictions of local residents. In Colombia, I personally witnessed a mining company's private security detail directing traffic on a public road. Is this normal? In 2016, a report entitled “The ‘Canada Brand’” found that violence associated with Canadian mining companies in Latin America had led to 44 deaths, 30 of which were classified as targeted.
There is no shortage of terrifying stories. I do not have enough time to go through them all, but there are definitely a lot of them. Another report, released in 2009, noted that “Canadian companies have been the most significant group involved in unfortunate incidents in the developing world” and that “Canadian companies are more likely to be engaged in community conflict [and] environmental and unethical behaviour”. The Canadian Centre for the Study of Resource Conflict reported that Canada held the record for the most violations among developed countries operating mines in developing countries.
A 2016 report by York University researchers documented incidents from 2000 to 2015 that were corroborated by at least two independent sources. It found 44 deaths, 403 injuries and 709 cases of criminalization. There was a widespread geographical distribution of violence, since deaths occurred in 11 countries, injuries were suffered in 13 countries, and criminalization occurred in 12 countries. Interestingly, the report notes that Canadian companies that are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange do not include reports of violence in their mandatory reports on company performance.
The fight against human rights violations committed for the sake of profit will require a whole spectrum of solutions. I have some ideas I would like to share, even though I know that not everyone in the House will agree with them: requiring importers to prove that their goods were not produced with forced labour; passing real due diligence legislation, like Bill C-262, to crack down harder on Canadian firms operating abroad; offering victims genuine recourse; giving the ombudsperson more powers, in the absence of a real, politically independent commission capable of launching its own investigations, which we think would have been the ideal solution; ending Ottawa's diplomatic policy of complicity; and taking a closer look at where Export Development Canada's money is going in other countries.
These are ideas. Not everyone in the House would agree with them. I have talked to the other parties about this. We will not all agree on what we would like to see in a future bill. However, we can agree that we cannot judge what we have not seen and that, at this point in time, we should have seen it a year ago. I therefore call on the entire House to clearly and strongly remind the government of its promise, which it has yet to fulfill, to table a bill by the end of the year. Consumers do not want blood on their hands.
