Bill S-211

Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act

An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff

This enactment enacts the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act , which imposes an obligation on certain government institutions and private-sector entities to report on the measures taken to prevent and reduce the risk that forced labour or child labour is used by them or in their supply chains. The Act provides for an inspection regime applicable to entities and gives the Minister the power to require an entity to provide certain information.
This enactment also amends the Customs Tariff to allow for aprohibition on the importation of goods manufactured or produced,in whole or in part, by forced labour or child labour as those terms are defined in the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act .

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I understand from your remarks that you favour Bill C‑262 over Bill S‑211.

How would passing Bill S‑211 prevent the subsequent passing of Bill C‑262?

[Alice Chipot, Executive Director, Regroupement pour la responsabilité sociale des entreprises]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today.

My name is Alice Chipot, and I'm the executive director of the Regroupement pour la responsabilité sociale des entreprises, the RRSE.

Our organization is located in Montreal and is comprised of more than 50 committed investors, including religious communities, foundations, non-profit organizations, research centres and individuals. For more than 20 years, we've been working for business practices and corporate behaviours that are in line with the expectations of Quebec and Canadian society. We work for greater social and environmental justice.

RRSE has joined with the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, or CNCA, to push for a comprehensive due diligence framework in Canada.

There are several points I'd like to highlight.

First, we applaud Parliament's efforts to eradicate modern slavery and all forms of forced labour in internationalized supply chains. That said, we believe that the bill currently under consideration misses its purpose and target by seeking to segment the human rights issue without providing effective legislative mechanisms.

The current wording of Bill S‑211 espouses the philosophy of small steps and, at it stands, is too weak to have the right effect. It's based on the idea of reporting and on marginal, even symbolic, penalties and fines for bad actors among companies.

At RRSE, we're a group of investors. We've been doing shareholder engagement for 20 years. What does that mean? It means that we work with the concept of reporting, with data based on ESG criteria, that is to say environmental, social and good governance criteria, and that we look closely at information on value chains. We work with what companies report, with what they agree to report, and with the information made available by rating agencies and other institutions.

While some companies are showing improvements in human rights, it's easy to say that reporting isn't enough to really have the desired effect and avoid negative consequences for the environment and the human condition.

Only a review of Canada's legislative and regulatory framework to protect against and punish repeat bad actors will provide an appropriate response. It's essential to identify existing risks, but also to provide mechanisms for condemnation and redress in the event of abuse. To do that, judges must be given a role and a place, because that is the only real deterrent.

There are good practices. They're not present or represented in this text. They should be looked at on the European side, particularly in France, Germany and the Netherlands. This would allow us to create a common basis, a reality of territories that complement each other.

We've just come out of COP27, where we heard the claims of the people of the southern part of the globe. So I add my voice to that of Jacques Nzumbu, a Jesuit expert on Canadian mining companies, who came to see you a few weeks ago and who repeatedly explained the reality of his community, that is to say the reality of the children and women who work in mining companies in the Congo.

I would also like to add my voice to those of the Uighurs in Montreal who came to see us at the RRSE to ask us to help them and to make visible the reality of modern slavery in supply chains, wondering what action Canada was taking.

Finally, I would like to add my voice to that of Kalpona Akter, who travelled a long way from Bangladesh to come and talk to us about the reality and condition of the workers she is working with.

In a nutshell, from the RRSE's perspective, reporting is not enough. In this day and age, we need a more ambitious and effective voice that provides a stronger ethical framework for the practices of large companies.

Thank you.

[Cheryl Hotchkiss, Director, Strategy and Operations, International Justice Mission Canada]

Thank you.

Greetings, committee chair, committee members and fellow witnesses. My name is Cheryl Hotchkiss, and I am from IJM Canada, or IJM.

IJM is a global organization seeking to protect people living in poverty from violence. We partner with local authorities in 29 program offices in 17 countries to combat trafficking and slavery, violence against women and children, and police abuse of power.

It is now estimated that nearly 50 million people are enslaved around the world. Of these 50 million, 28 million are caught up in forced labour. The combined impacts of COVID-19, conflict and climate change have pushed more people into poverty, making them vulnerable to all forms of exploitation, including forced labour, and pressed parents and families to remove children from schools to work to help their families survive.

In countries where there are high rates of poverty, particularly extreme poverty, you will find broken systems caused in part by governments unable or unwilling to provide leadership to creating and maintaining healthy justice and social systems. COVID-19, conflict and climate change cause further degradation of these systems. Unhealthy systems enable all forms of lawlessness, create instability and breed fear. People living in poverty are forced into jobs where they can make a meagre income in risky jobs that often take them away from families, leaving them further isolated and at risk of exploitation. For women in forced labour there's an increased risk of violence, particularly sexual violence.

IJM is exposed to this grim reality in our efforts to help the most vulnerable receive protection and support from systems that didn't prevent and maybe even enabled exploitation. We know that an unhealthy legal system needs many actors to improve it and make it work for the most vulnerable so that they can find decent work where there's no fear of violence and exploitation. We believe that corporations have a critical role to play in helping unhealthy systems to improve and effectively protect vulnerable people. We appreciate that corporations are focused on generating good returns for investors and creating products that consumers want. They are not responsible for playing the role that governments should. But they have influence that can encourage and help governments undertake their responsibilities to protect their citizens effectively.

This is why for IJM, Bill S-211 is important. We know corporations have a positive opportunity to impact justice system reform. The governments in these countries where there is forced labour need corporations to have stable environments in which to do their work or gather resources they need for their products. Unhealthy justice systems mean an unstable society for everyone, including corporations. Voluntary codes of conduct or individual corporate efforts to address exploitation in supply chains create an unlevel playing field for corporations importing and selling products in Canada. Those who want to address forced labour and child labour in their supply chains bear the costs associated with that on their own and pass that on to the consumers.

Bill S-211 will enable justice and labour protection reform. It will do this by creating the conditions where corporations can work together, and will be encouraged to work together, to know what is in their supply chains. We've seen this happen with the Seafood Task Force in Thailand and Malaysia, where companies collaborated to create a level playing field to operate in the wake of similar legislation regarding forced labour in the fishing industry. With that information, they can act on their own or as a collective to press governments to take concrete action to improve justice systems for the most vulnerable, which includes listening to people who've been caught up in exploited labour and forced labour.

The bill will provide a collective and impactful deterrent to end forced labour and child labour through the imposition of the import prohibition. This ban levels the playing field for corporations that are making efforts to address forced and child labour in their supply chains to compete with those who aren't taking any action.

Finally, it will give Canadians, who care about the impact of their consumer choices, information to help them make better choices and use market forces to improve the supply chains for all products sold in Canada.

IJM is encouraged by Bill S-211 and wants the Canadian government to be involved in progressive efforts taken by other G20 nations so that the next ILO report on modern slavery has the numbers going in the right direction—downward.

Thank you.

[Emily Dwyer, Policy Director, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability]

Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the invitation to be here.

My name is Emily Dwyer. I'm the policy director at the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, or CNCA.

We are grateful to parliamentarians for taking this issue seriously, and we urge them to act swiftly to address the many reports of human rights violations in Canada's global supply chains.

Modern slavery exists, and some Canadian companies are profiting from it. Canadians from coast to coast to coast want Canada to take decisive action to eradicate forced labour and other human rights abuses from Canadian supply chains, but in its current form, Bill S-211 would not prevent exploitation and abuse. Bill S-211 would do more harm than good.

Our network of 40 organizations and unions from across the country was formed in 2005 to collectively call for mandatory measures to require companies to respect human rights and the environment in their global operations. We represent the voices of millions of Canadians, and our members have long-standing relationships with communities, women, indigenous peoples and workers around the world.

Our membership does not support Bill S-211, because the bill as currently drafted would allow Canadian companies to continue to profit from human suffering and environmental damage. The harm we're talking about is not trivial. It ranges from forced labour to land and water contamination, workers' rights violations, killings and gang rapes, many of these linked to Canadian mining and oil and gas operations abroad.

Canada needs the right legislation if we are serious about tackling corporate abuse. Simply put, a law that requires you to report but does not require you to stop the harm you're causing may be easy to pass with all-party support, but it is also meaningless.

What is needed is a law that goes beyond a basic reporting requirement.

To get widespread support of civil society and to catch up to global momentum, supply chain legislation should, first, focus on preventing and remedying harm, rather than reporting; second, help impacted people access remedies; and third, apply to all human rights.

At best, Bill S-211 is meaningless, as it will not improve the situation for those who are harmed. At worst, the bill is damaging because it creates the appearance of action to end modern slavery without actually having any such effect.

Bill S-211 does not require companies to stop using or to stop profiting from child or forced labour. It does not require companies to take any steps to identify whether slave labour is in their supply chains. It does not require company directors to certify that their supply chains are free of forced labour.

If companies do make use of child or forced labour, the bill doesn't offer help to the victims at all. This means that a company could comply with Bill S-211 by taking no steps or by taking patently inadequate steps, remaining wilfully blind and continuing business as usual.

The evidence from other countries confirms that reporting-only laws have not been effective in addressing corporate abuse. For example, a five-year review of the U.K.'s modern slavery reporting registry “revealed no significant improvements in companies' policies or practice” and also said that it “failed to be an effective driver of corporate action to end forced labour”.

Europe is moving away from reporting-only approaches towards mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence laws. Canada should do the same.

It is urgent that communities and workers harmed in Canadian supply chains be protected from abuse and have access to remedy in Canada. We hope the process currently under way will ultimately lead to such a result, but we want to be very clear: Our network's position is that if Bill S-211 as currently drafted were to go to a vote today, we would be advising MPs to vote no.

We also believe that this committee needs to hear directly from impacted people and workers, and we note their absence from the speakers list. Kalpona Akter, herself previously a child worker and today a world-renowned labour rights activist from Bangladesh, joins me today and can intervene during the question and answer period.

We hope the committee will expand the number of sessions it holds so that it can hear directly from the directly impacted people around the world.

Thank you for your time.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start with Mr. Friedman.

Could you please map out this piece of legislation—Bill S-211—for us, how it's situated within the framework of similar legislation in other jurisdictions—in particular, you talked about the evolution of transparency legislation—and how it lands within that evolution over the years?

[Stephen Brown, Chief Executive Officer, National Council of Canadian Muslims]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for providing us the opportunity to offer you our thoughts on the study of this committee on Bill S-211.

My name is Stephen Brown. I'm the CEO of the National Council of Canadian Muslims. I'm joined today by Fatema Abdalla, the advocacy officer for the council.

There are two key submissions I want to provide to this committee.

First and most important is the issue of urgency. We must move swiftly, as there should not be another day in which Canada tolerates the products of forced labour on our grocery shelves.

Second and critical is amending the language of Bill S-211 to clearly indicate that all products arising from East Turkestan, also known as Xinjiang, should not be allowed to come into Canada, subject to a reverse onus provision where companies operating in the area need to demonstrate that those products do not arise as a product of forced labour. Such an amendment is not novel and would bring us into alignment with the current legislative schema of countries like the United States.

We want to be clear. This is a strong bill bolstering transparency obligations pertaining to forced labour risks. We are here to ask you to pass this bill urgently, but with one key amendment. For the three key reasons that I will lay out below, we submit that there are reasons that inexorably compel this House to amend the legislation to ensure that Canada does not tolerate forced labour products from East Turkestan specifically. That is because I'm here on behalf of those who, until recently, were forgotten.

In 2006, our organization called for the Government of Canada to secure the release of Huseyin Celil, a Canadian Uighur activist who has been detained in China and rendered to the concentration camps. We still do not have definitive evidence as to whether he is alive or not. His wife, Kamila, continues to fight and pray for his return.

Let’s start with reason number one. This House passed a motion that, while non-binding, labelled what is happening in China right now as a genocide. There is simply no reason to have any equivocation as to whether the CBSA has to use discretion in ascertaining whether products arising from East Turkestan violate Bill S-211. Rather, based purely on this ground, it offends common sense and, more importantly, our collective humanity to allow products to be coming to Canada from East Turkestan specifically. Therefore, we have a duty to ensure that the ambit of the legislation captures what is happening in East Turkestan clearly as a prima facie case of forced labour.

Second, this brings us to the issue of enforcement. Presently, despite memorandum D9-1-6, the CBSA has been unable to deal with forced labour products arising from East Turkestan. To quote CBSA director, John Ossowski:

Unlike most other inadmissible products, there is no visual clue for a [customs officer] to understand the labour standards by which a particular import was produced. Establishing that goods were produced by forced labour and compiling evidence requires a significant amount of research and analysis in coordination with other government department partners.

The CBSA should not have this level of difficulty in turning back shipments from East Turkestan, and the current context of Bill S-211 will not fix the issue.

Third, amending Bill S-211 would allow Canada to come into line with other jurisdictions when it comes to removing forced labour from supply chains. The United States is a good example in this case, since it has already taken a similar measure by passing the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, ensuring that all goods, wares, articles and merchandise mined, produced or manufactured wholly or in part in the Uighur region are denied entry to U.S. ports.

We know that you and your colleagues may wonder whether this critical amendment is out of scope or whether it opens a can of worms by raising the question of other specific countries that should be listed. We think both of these concerns are overstated, for reasons I'm happy to expand upon.

We are urging this committee—we're begging you as parliamentarians—to ensure that we take this opportunity of legislation that has strong bipartisan support to give it enough teeth to make sure that Uighur human hair doesn't end up in Canadian pillows. That’s all we're asking today.

Also, I note in closing that we expand significantly on the submissions before you today in our brief, which will be submitted next week.

Thank you very much.

[Martin Dumas, Lawyer and Professor, Industrial Relations Department, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to make it clear to committee members that my English is good enough that I can answer any questions they ask in English after my presentation.

I'm appearing before the committee today not only as a lawyer and professor, but more importantly as a researcher. I completed my doctoral studies in labour law at the London School of Economics. My field of study was specifically child labour in countries or regions that are not as developed as Canada, and specifically in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh and in Africa.

I'd like to summarize my three comments on Bill S‑211.

My first comment is about the preamble.

The first whereas of the bill's preamble suggests that forced labour and child labour are forms of modern slavery. I agree wholeheartedly that forced labour constitutes a form of modern slavery, but I wouldn't say that all forms of child labour constitute modern slavery. In my opinion, the definition of what constitutes slavery is problematic. Many forms of child labour do not constitute slavery. For terminological reasons, it would be important to correct that, in my view.

My second, more substantive comment concerns the very definition of child labour found in the “Definitions” section of the bill. This definition should not be used. Let me elaborate.

It seems to me that two paragraphs in the proposed definition are somewhat inappropriate for an initiative aiming to realistically reduce child labour. I'm referring to paragraphs (a) and (c).

Paragraph (a) refers to work or services that are “provided or offered to be provided in Canada under circumstances that are contrary to the laws applicable in Canada”.

Paragraph (c) refers to work or services provided or offered by persons under the age of 18 years that “interfere with their schooling by depriving them of the opportunity to attend school, obliging them to leave school prematurely or requiring them to attempt to combine school attendance with excessively long and heavy work”.

In my opinion, these two paragraphs are problematic and I will quickly explain why.

Based on the studies I've done in developing countries, I would say that the types of work some children are found to do are quite acceptable from the perspective of parents who are in absolutely dire straits. However, we don't always consider such dire straits when taking a critical look at child labour around the world.

I will simply give you a typical example to clarify my opinion.

Sometimes children find themselves in situations where, although their work forces them to postpone or suspend their schooling, it doesn't necessarily harm their health or safety and it's legitimized. When a ban on child labour is strictly enforced, situations arise where children are essentially forced to perform even more dangerous work, with their parents' permission. This is what we've observed on the ground. For example, children who were forbidden to weave carpets found themselves making bricks a few weeks later in even more dangerous circumstances that were detrimental to their health. We have seen situations where young girls who were forbidden to weave saris would later find themselves on the street working as prostitutes.

I'll give you a very simple example—imagine a mother whose husband has died and must have her 13‑year‑old son work to support her family.

That's the gist of what I wanted to tell you today. I'll save the rest of the time to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome to meeting number 38 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room as well as remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

Interpretation for those on Zoom is at the bottom of your screen, and you have a choice of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use an earpiece and select the desired channel.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 1, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill S-211, an act to enact the fighting against forced labour and child labour in supply chains act and—

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

As I said, the support of Bill S-211 is going to be really important. It is about getting rid of forced labour and child labour in supply chains.

We, of course, are concerned about the region. We are going to keep working with Canadian companies on the one hand, so that they understand their expectations abroad, and at the same time have the mechanisms necessary to live up to what Canadians expect of us in international trade.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Let me begin by saying that in our trade, we lead with Canadian values. The CPTPP is a terrific example of that. The C and the P components were Canadian additions for high standards on labour and on the environment. We have updated and strengthened our responsible business conduct strategy, and I expect all Canadian companies operating anywhere in the world, including in China, to uphold those high standards.

We have supported Bill S-211. This is the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act. Yes, we are taking action to make sure that when we have forced labour concerns, there will be contract suspensions and shipment interceptions, and we will withdraw the Canadian trade commissioner service.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

There are two more things. I will remind members one more time about witnesses for our Haiti study. We have until five o'clock tomorrow, because during the second hour on Monday we will be hearing about the situation in Haiti.

With respect to Bill S-211, I would ask everyone to kindly submit their witnesses by November 1, which is Tuesday.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.

Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the sponsor of this motion and everybody who is joining us for this debate. I know there are many people present in the precinct and following along online.

I have the honour of being the co-chair, along with my friend, the mover of this motion, of the parliamentary friendship group for Uighurs. That is one of many reasons that I am proud to speak in support of Motion No. 62 and express the support of the Conservative Party for this motion. I expect that when it comes to a vote, we will be able to speak united and with one voice.

I think there is a critically important role for the official opposition, which is to support the government in the areas we agree with and challenge the government when there are gaps in the response.

This issue is deeply personal for me. It is not hard to tell that I am not of Uighur background myself, but my grandmother was a Holocaust survivor. She was a Jewish child who grew up in Germany and hid out, and many of her family members were killed. I was raised with an awareness of the grievous injustice that had been visited upon her extended family. She was in a position, as a vulnerable child and a member of a persecuted minority, where she was not able to speak out about her own situation, but she survived the war because people who had a voice and had an opportunity to speak had the courage to speak out against what was happening, the injustices that were happening.

I have a big portrait on the wall in my office of Blessed Clemens von Galen, who was the bishop of the Munster area of Germany where she was. He was a bold, fearless critic of the Nazis, someone who had a position of privilege within that society and used his position to speak out against injustice.

A couple of years ago, my sister and I took a trip to Berlin. We were looking at the sites of deportation. What strikes Canadians when they go to Europe is how much closer everything is together. We are used to wide open spaces. We saw the streets through which Jews were brought to a train station and where they were being sent away, and what struck me was the apartment buildings that are close by where people, everyday Germans, would have been living. They would have been able to look down and see their former neighbours and people from their community being pushed and herded away to their deaths.

When I was there with my sister, we talked about this, and I wondered what these people were thinking, the ones who could see what was going on. Perhaps they had a mix of perspectives and knew it was wrong but were afraid in some way of the consequences of speaking out for truth and justice. What were they thinking? Why did they not do more?

At the end of the Second World War, we made a promise to my grandmother's generation of “never again”. Never again would we allow people to be slaughtered because of their ethnic or religious background. We would do everything possible to make genocide a crime and stop it everywhere. However, in the seven years I have spent as a member of Parliament, we have recognized and responded to not one but multiple cases of ongoing genocide. It is clear that we have failed to deliver on the promise we made to my grandmother's generation.

I think about those apartment buildings and the people who could see the injustice happening in front of them. Today, we have satellite imagery. We do not need to be in apartment buildings directly above what is happening. We can see the photographs. We can look at the numbers and see the precipitous drop in birth rates as a result of forced abortion, forced sterilization and systemic sexual violence targeting the Uighur community.

I owe it to my grandmother and to those like her to use the voice I have now to speak out against contemporary injustices, recognize the failure to live up to that promise of “never again” and do all we can to respond.

The first step should be a recognition of the crime of genocide, because in the history of jurisprudence following the Second World War, we tried to establish this crime of genocide and establish a responsibility to protect. Individual nations that are a party to the genocide convention have an obligation. It is not just an obligation where there is conclusive proof of genocide, but an obligation when there is evidence that genocide may be occurring.

Those obligations exist for individual states who are parties to that convention. Those obligations do not depend on whether some international body determines it to be a genocide. Those obligations are for individual states who are signatories to the genocide convention. Canada is a signatory, so Canada has obligations. We have a responsibility to act to protect when we see a genocide happening or when there is evidence to suggest that there may be a genocide happening.

This testimony was clearly given by former justice minister Irwin Cotler at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights when we studied this question. He made clear in his testimony that not one but all five of the possible conditions of the genocide convention have likely been transgressed in the case of Uighurs. The evidence was clear then, and the evidence is more clear now than it was then. When this Parliament first voted on the question of genocide recognition, it was before some of the new information that has come out since and various other tribunals that have made all the more clear the situation we are in.

The problem is that, since nations have recognized that they have an obligation to respond to genocide and that they have an obligation to protect in the case of genocide, those same nations have become reluctant to acknowledge that a genocide is taking place, because when they acknowledge that a genocide is happening, then they are legally obliged to act. However, whether or not they are willing to admit that they know, they do know because the evidence is clear. To paraphrase William Wilberforce, we may choose to look away, but in the face of the evidence, we may never again say that we did not know.

The evidence has been there, yet again this week we had a motion before the House on genocide recognition. Everyone who voted, voted in favour of genocide recognition, but the cabinet still abstained. This is extremely important because, if the government had voted in favour of that motion, it would be recognizing the legal obligations it has under the genocide convention, but it still failed to do that. I salute members of all parties who have been prepared to take that step nonetheless, but it would be that much more impactful if the cabinet, if the Government of Canada, was prepared to take that step.

The House of Commons, by the way, has led in the world. We were the first democratic legislature in the world to recognize the Uighur genocide, and many other legislatures followed. Ironically, while our legislature has led, the government has not yet taken that step.

Nonetheless, there are still so many more things that we can do and we need to do. Now we are seeing myriad private member's motions and bills coming from various parties that respond to the recognition that at least individual members have, if not the government, that a genocide is taking place. We have Motion No. 62, which seeks to advance targeted immigration measures to support Uighurs. We have various pieces of legislation, such as Bill S-211 and Bill S-204, that seek to address forced labour. We have proposals, such Bill C-281, which would strengthen our sanctions regime and allow parliamentary committees to nominate individuals for sanction.

We see this flurry of activity now from members of Parliament and senators using the power that we have as parliamentarians to respond to this recognition of genocide, but the ultimate power rests in the hands of the government. It is the government that has to act, even in the case of the motion before us, which is a non-binding motion that makes a recommendation to the government. It is an important tool to encourage the government to act.

Of course, the government did not have to wait for Motion No. 62, and it does not need to wait for it now. The motion contains a timeline that is fairly generous to the government, fair enough, but I would challenge the government to take up its responsibility. Individual members of Parliament are doing what we can to be a voice for the voiceless to recognize the reality, and the government must as well.

I believe that every single member of this cabinet who has looked at the evidence knows that a genocide is happening and knows that they have an obligation. It will be to their eternal shame if they do not act on that knowledge as soon as possible.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

moved:

That, given the motion adopted unanimously by the House on February 22, 2021, recognizing that a genocide is currently being carried out by the People's Republic of China against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims, in the opinion of the House, the government should:

(a) recognize that Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims that have fled to third countries face pressure and intimidation by the Chinese state to return to China, where they face the serious risk of mass arbitrary detention, mass arbitrary separation of children from their parents, forced sterilization, forced labour, torture and other atrocities;

(b) recognize that many of these third countries face continued diplomatic and economic pressure from the People's Republic of China to detain and deport Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims leaving them without a safe haven in the world;

(c) urgently leverage Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program to expedite the entry of 10,000 Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in need of protection, over two years starting in 2024 into Canada; and

(d) table in the House, within 120 sitting days following the adoption of this motion, a report on how the refugee resettlement plan will be implemented.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here in the House with all members today. I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on Algonquin territory.

Today is an important day. We will be discussing an important program that is within Motion No. 62, a motion to welcome 10,000 Uighur who are facing genocide within China right now, at this moment in time.

This motion calls for the Government of Canada to resettle 10,000 Uighur as of 2024 from third countries. Why third countries? It is because we cannot welcome, unfortunately, Uighur who are currently undergoing the genocide within China, but we can provide safe haven for vulnerable Uighur within third countries. These third countries primarily include countries from north Africa and the Arab world, but not exclusively. There are several other countries where Uighur people are living and are present.

We have heard a lot of testimony from survivors at committees and at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. In the past we have heard horrifying nightmare stories of people being abused in unspeakable ways, of women being violated and men too. We heard about forced labour. There are over a million people currently in forced labour camps. We heard about children, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, being separated from their families when they should be in the care of their moms and dads.

We know that 20% of the world's cotton is produced in China, likely tainted by forced labour. We know that 35% of tomato products are also tainted by forced labour because they come from the Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region. We know that 45% of polyurethane, which is the base material for solar panels, as the world tries to go green, is also tainted by forced labour. This is wholly and entirely unacceptable. This is something that we, as a country and as a human family, must stand up against.

We had a motion from the benches opposite in February 2021 that called on the House to recognize that a genocide is in fact occurring. Thankfully the House voted unanimously and spoke with one voice on that matter. Not a single person voted against it. We unanimously voted to recognize that a genocide is in fact occurring toward the Uighur people.

This issue is not a partisan issue. For those who make it such, shame on them. They know who they are. This is an issue about people who are dying, who are being violated and who are being mistreated. We said after World War II that this would not happen again. After Bosnia and Yugoslavia, we also reconfirmed that intent. After what happened in Rwanda, we did the same, and with the Rohingya again. Now we know, a genocide is occurring.

What are we going to do? We heard the reports. We know the reports. Many of us have read the reports, over 50 pages long, from Michelle Bachelet, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. She said that these allegations of the Uighur people are well-founded, and they also may amount to international crimes, including crimes against humanity. These are high crimes in international law, as is genocide.

The international community, in 2005, said that these types of international crimes must be prevented. Therefore, each and every country has a responsibility to protect when we see crimes against humanity occurring, or the threat of them occurring. When we see genocide occurring or the threat of genocide occurring, we, as a human family, as a collective of countries and as Canada, all have a responsibility to protect.

Our responsibility is engaged and we must act. One way in which we can answer this is by voting for this program to welcome 10,000 Uighurs here in Canada. We have a proud tradition in our country of welcoming refugees and asylum seekers. This is a proud Canadian tradition.

This program will not halt the genocide. It will put a slight dent in it. This program will not answer our obligation, the responsibility, to protect. It will in part answer it. This is something that speaks to our tradition. This is something that we can do, should do, must do.

In the past, we have welcomed many different people who have been fleeing for their lives from genocides, from crimes against humanity. Recently, we can think of Yazidis, Syrians and Afghans. We can think of Hongkongers. We created some special pathways. We can do this again, now, today.

I will share some facts about the Uighur people. Who are they? We hear the term but we do not know who they are.

Like all people, they are a proud people. They live in the western part of China, what they have traditionally called East Turkestan, what we know in international law as Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region.

Xinjiang has a particular meaning. It means “new frontier” in the tongue of the majority of people within China. It is approximately, as I mentioned, one-sixth the land mass of China. It also has many vast deserts and mountains. It historically has been part of the ancient Silk Road trade route that connected China, that allowed for trade to occur to Europe and the Middle East. That trade route is being revived, but with a modern update, with highways and the free flow of goods.

That is why the supply chain issue is a big question. The current belt and road initiative runs through Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

As I mentioned earlier, 20% of the world's cotton is produced there. Eighty per cent of China's cotton actually comes from the region. I will repeat that for all of us who buy cotton. Eighty per cent of Chinese cotton comes from Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, as does 35% of tomato products, pasta and pizza.

I love pasta and pizza. Contrary to first impressions, I am actually one-quarter Italian and one-quarter Sicilian. I joke sometimes that my colour comes from my Sicilian side. It is a bad joke, but I say it sometimes.

We know that approximately 45% of the base materials for solar panels come from that region also. Minerals, such as gold, silver and zinc come from there. It is very mineral-rich.

There has been atomic testing also in the region since the 1960s. In addition to all of the horrors that we heard, these things are occurring.

These horrors are real, so real, as I mentioned, that the former high commissioner of human rights, Michelle Bachelet, said that these allegations are well-founded.

Thankfully, in addition to my motion, we had a preview this week in the House when we were discussing and then voted to concur in the immigration committee's report, which called for immigration. That report unfortunately, or fortunately, did not specify something. That report that we all unanimously concurred in this week said that we should create special immigration measures for Uighur people and other Turkic minorities, but we did not specify what those measures should be.

This motion does exactly that. It completes what happened earlier this week, when we said, “Let us do this.” This motion says how. This motion is precise. It is specific. It is time-bound. It is what we need.

In addition to this, we thankfully have a number of initiatives in the House, and I would like to see them all pass and made into law.

First is Bill S-211, which is on forced labour. It is a very important bill. Thankfully, our foreign affairs minister has said that we support it. She said that in August, when replying to Michelle Bachelet's report that there may be crimes against humanity occurring within the region, so already our foreign affairs minister has said such. This initiative started in the Senate and now is in the House. It is actually heading to committee.

We also have a second initiative on organ harvesting: Bill S-223, which is also an important piece of legislation. Organ harvesting does occur within Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region, but not exclusively there. We know that Falun Gong, or Falun Dafa, practitioners have been subject to this in the past. It is well documented.

These are a number of the initiatives that are in progress and happening right now. They are initiatives that we should all be supporting.

Our government has done a handful of things. We have implemented Magnitsky sanctions against four individuals and one entity that are active and responsible for these crimes. This was done in advance of the genocide motion of February 2021. We also have a number of advisory opinions for companies operating within Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region. As an advocate, I would like always to see that strengthened, and that must be strengthened through Bill S-211.

I would like to highlight something. While we are speaking squarely about the crimes against humanity and genocide occurring within China, we need to be careful not to fall into unconscious bias about Asians and Chinese people. That is very important, as we advocate clearly and unambiguously, to not to fall into that. At the end, I personally have, on this issue, no qualms, if and when the government in China were to stop doing what it is doing, I personally would not speak on this issue, but only if and when China does stop doing what it is doing. However, until then, all of us, including myself, must speak on this issue.

I would like to impress upon the House how we united behind my motion. I want to share something. My seconder is Rachel Bendayan, a colleague of mine in the benches.

Citizenship and Immigration

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

Oh boy, do I ever, Mr. Speaker. I think I would need a whole other speech just to address that.

What I would point out is that there is currently a bill in front of the foreign affairs committee, Bill S-211, that deals with supply chain reporting. It deals with big companies that operate in the west or in Canada. In particular, they would have to do a report on the impacts of their companies on human trafficking and forced labour. That is for sure a bill I would like to get passed.

The other thing is what the Americans are doing. They are identifying the province of Xinjiang as a place where forced labour is a problem, so for any products that are coming out of that area, there is a reverse onus and companies must prove that forced labour is not being used in their products. That is another initiative that I could get behind, and I look forward to the government moving on that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to stand in this place and represent the people of Edmonton Strathcona.

I find this to be such an important debate for us to have, but I have to say that I am disappointed that it is happening in this manner and not when more parliamentarians can join in and there can be more people to participate in the discussion. After so many years, I think the genocide happening against the Uighur people is something every parliamentarian in this place must take with the utmost seriousness, and I worry that it is not being taken as such this evening.

I am a relatively new member of Parliament and have only been in this place for three years. One of the very first things that happened after I was elected was an appointment to the international human rights subcommittee. As I think I have brought up before in this place, my whole career has been about international development, foreign affairs and sustainable development around the world, so I was appointed to be the New Democrat member on that subcommittee. I was so happy to have that opportunity, because I feel like in my heart I have spent most of my career trying to fight for the human rights of people around the world, and this felt like an opportunity to do that and perhaps take it to the next level.

One of the very first studies we undertook looked at the genocide of the Uighur people in China. I have two brothers who are very rough and tumble with me, and I was beaten up many times as a child when I was growing up. I have lots of cousins too. I think of myself as a relatively tough and robust person, but the testimony I heard from expert witnesses, Uighurs and people who experienced the genocide was the most harrowing thing I have ever heard to date. The stories of rape, of forced sterilization, of people being surveilled and of the very systematic and cold attempts to erase a people were horrific for me to hear. It was very difficult.

Of course, I am only hearing these stories; I am not experiencing them, so I always try to imagine what it must be like to be somebody from Xinjiang who is dealing with this and is not seeing the world stand up for them and not hearing people in Canada and around the world say that they are not going to tolerate this. How difficult must it be for the Uighurs not only in China but in Canada to know their loved ones are experiencing this genocide?

When I come to this debate, that is what I bring. I bring the testimony that I heard at the international human rights subcommittee. I bring all of the stories I heard in many meetings with members of the Uighur community and with many members of the community who fight for human rights.

I think this is a vitally important debate and it is vitally important that we are all here, but it was disappointing for me that we did not vote to have a debate on the report that came out of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. There was no opportunity for that debate to happen.

Of course, we know the Uighurs have raised concerns about these issues for years. We know they have been calling for more action not only from Canadian parliamentarians but from other parliamentarians for years. In fact, the recommendations that came forward from the report of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights were very clear. We asked that the Government of China be condemned for its “actions against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang”. We asked to “work with allies and multilateral organizations to help international observers gain unfettered access to Xinjiang”. We asked to “provide support through international overseas development assistance to civil society organizations especially in countries that are geopolitically important to China's Belt and Road Initiative”.

We asked to “recognize that the acts being committed in Xinjiang against Uyghurs constitute genocide and work within legal frameworks” of what that meant. We also asked to “impose sanctions under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act on all Government of China officials responsible for the perpetration of grave human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims.”

We brought forward these recommendations, but we have not seen the level of action from the government that I think all of us in this place should be demanding. We have not seen the empathy and care that I think we have seen for other conflicts.

One of the things I struggle with the most in this place is that we are often in a situation where we are asked to prioritize human rights, to amplify the rights of one group of people over the rights of another. I do not know how to do that. I do not know how as parliamentarians we can do that. Of course, we need to provide whatever support is necessary to help the people in Ukraine who are struggling with a genocide of their own from the Russian Federation. We need to ensure that the people in Ukraine can flee violence, that they can come to Canada and seek safety here and that they are protected and cared for 100%.

However, as parliamentarians, we need to recognize that being from Ukraine does not make someone's life more valuable than being from Afghanistan, being a Uighur from China, being from Yemen, being from Palestine or being from Tigray. We need to recognize that Canada has an important role. We are a country of such opportunity and such wealth, and we have an important role in this world to open up our doors and welcome those who are fleeing violence, those who are fleeing persecution and those who are fleeing genocide. That is such a fundamental role for Canada. That is how many of us ended up here.

I am, in fact, a settler in this country. My family came when the Scots were being persecuted in Scotland. Canada opened its doors and welcomed us here, and, of course, generations of McPhersons, and I am also a McCoy, have flourished in Canada. Providing that opportunity for people around the world is what Canada is all about and what we need to be able to do.

I support the idea of bringing Uighurs here and ensuring that Uighurs are able to flee genocide to come here, but I have deep concerns. I think everybody in the House, including members of the government, must recognize that IRCC is broken. Immigration services with the government are broken. If anyone in the House does not agree that this is a problem, they are not listening to their constituents. They are not listening to the fact that we have massive delays and massive problems.

In Edmonton, Alberta, 636 students who were approved to study at the University of Alberta could not do so this fall because they could not get a study permit. It cost the University of Alberta $6 million. These are people who wanted to come here to study. I therefore have some concerns about the IRCC's capacity to actually welcome all of the newcomers we need to be welcoming in Canada. Absolutely there are people who are suffering around the world, and the Uighurs have been suffering for years. For years they have been calling for attention to this horrific genocide. However, Canada needs to do better at welcoming people into our country. We need to be better at doing the work of government to ensure that people can come here.

For me, I do not want to say that we need to limit how many Ukrainians, Afghans, Tigrayans or Syrians come to Canada so we can make sure that Uighurs are able to come. There needs to be something done so that all people fleeing violence have access to come here, are able to be treated with respect, are able to be protected and able to be brought here. I have this deep worry that there is a Peter-Paul mentality with the government.

In August 2021, we were going to welcome a huge number of Afghans into our country. Then, of course, the horrific war started in Ukraine, and we were going to welcome an unlimited number of Ukrainians into our country. That is great, but we do not have the capacity to do that right now.

My worry is how we are going to get there. How can we work with the government? How can all of us in this place work with and reinforce to the government how important it is that it fix our broken immigration system so that we can be the country that so many Canadians believe we are, and certainly that so many Canadians believe we should be.

There is another thing I want to raise. In terms of immigration, there are things that we can do, things that need to happen and things we can expedite to make sure that Uighurs are protected, but there are other things we can do to help the people in Xinjiang who are being persecuted right now. There is legislation before the foreign affairs committee, Bill S-211, that looks at forced labour. My opinion, and members may say this is always the NDP opinion, is that the bill does not go far enough. It would not do near enough to protect people from forced labour, slave labour or child labour around the world.

My dear colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, brought forward Bill C-262, which is an excellent example of what forced labour legislation could look like. It aligns very much with what is happening around the world, in Germany, the EU, France, Australia and the U.K. This country is at least a decade behind other countries in ensuring that we have good forced labour legislation in place.

It has been in mandate letter after mandate letter, which used to mean that action would be taken, but it does not appear to mean that any longer. I look at things like that and ask how we can make sure that Canada is not complicit in supporting forced labour, that we are ensuring that the cotton, the tomatoes and the products that come into Canada are not produced with forced or slave labour. What can we do to make that better?

There is one last thing I want to talk about today. Here is what I am struggling with in the House of Commons right now. I worry that what we are doing in this place is politicizing human rights. I worry that we are using it as a tool to cause shenanigans or gum up the work of government, and if that is the case, we should be so deeply ashamed of ourselves. Human rights are of such fundamental importance that, when they are used as a tool to gum up the work of government, it demeans every member of Parliament. When we use human rights as a trick to force things through or to stop things from going forward, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

When we talk about human rights in this place, we need to be honest with ourselves and talk about human rights across the board, because it is not okay that the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party refuses to talk about human rights in Yemen, as both of them are complicit in the selling of arms to the regime that is propping up that war.

It is not all right that neither one of them will talk about human rights in Palestine. Children in Palestine are being murdered, and neither of the parties will talk about that. That is not all right. They do not get to pick and choose human rights. They do not get to choose that the people being murdered in Tigray matter less than other people. They do not get to choose that the Uighurs do not matter because we have an economic relationship with China. That is not now human rights work. For every one of us in this place, if we believe in protecting human rights, then a human right is a human right is a human right.

It does not matter if it is a child in Palestine. It does not matter if it is a child in Yemen. It does not matter if it is a woman in Xinjiang. It does not matter if it is a woman in Ukraine. If we have a feminist foreign policy, and if we believe in human rights, all human rights matter.

I am deeply afraid that in this place we are choosing to politicize human rights. We are choosing to use human rights to forward our agenda and gum up the works of Parliament. About that, I am deeply worried.

There is a genocide happening against the Uighurs in Xinjiang. There is a genocide happening in China right now. Parliamentarians have an obligation to stand up to protect the people being persecuted. We have an obligation to welcome those people to Canada. It is not even an obligation. It is a privilege to welcome those people to Canada.

I will always stand in this place and fight for human rights. I will tell members that I will fight for all human rights, not just some of them.