Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (44th Parliament, 1st Session)

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Monday, April 4, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 5:06 p.m. [ET] for clause‑by‑clause consideration of Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff.

Senator Salma Ataullahjan (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Today is our fifth and final meeting on Bill S-211.

Are there any objections that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff?

If none, then it is agreed.

Are there any objections that the title stand postponed? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that the preamble stand postponed? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 2 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 3 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 4 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 5 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 6 carry?

Senator Omidvar: Madam Chair — no.

Senator Gerba: Madam Chair, I have an amendment for clause 6. Do you want me to explain why?

The Chair: Senator, I will read the amendment, and then I will ask you for an explanation.

Senator Gerba: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: So moved by the Honourable Senator Gerba:

That Bill S-211 be amended in clause 6, on page 4, by adding the following after line 21:

“(d.1) any measures taken to remediate the loss of income to the most vulnerable families that results from any measure taken to eliminate the use of forced labour or child labour in its activities and supply chains;”.

That’s the amendment you have, Senator Gerba. I would like to turn to you for an explanation as to why you feel that that is necessary. We have some senators who weren’t on this committee, and maybe they would like to hear. Thank you.

Senator Gerba: Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

If you please, I will give my explanation in French.

[Translation]

Colleagues, the debates of the last few weeks have been very enlightening. By the same token, they gave us the opportunity to strengthen Bill S-211. If passed, Bill S-211 will require targeted Canadian companies to report on their activities and how they have participated in reducing forced labour and child labour in supply chains.

Despite the criticisms and limitations noted by various witnesses, it should be recognized that this bill is an important first step in filling a legal gap in this area in Canada. It is a good start. During his testimony last week, Professor Surya Deva, a member of the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, told us that the bill’s focus on the end goal of transparency through reporting is extremely limiting. In his view, this bill should also include preventive measures to effectively combat forced labour and child labour. My proposal goes in this direction: Indeed, the majority of children targeted by forced labour in the surrounding companies are working first to help their families and for their survival.

I myself worked to help my family when I was very young. To fight child labour effectively, we need to find the means to support the victims and their families. Otherwise, the phenomenon will continue in other forms or in other companies that are not subject to the law on forced labour and child labour. Madam Chair, in view of all this, I propose

That Bill S-211 be amended in clause 6, on page 4, by replacing lines 20 and 21 with the following:

“(d) any measures taken to remediate the socioeconomic consequences of forced labour or child labour, including any measure taken to remedy the loss of income to the most vulnerable families resulting from any measure taken to eliminate the use of forced labour or child labour;”.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, senator. Do senators have any questions or any clarification they would like?

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I support this amendment submitted by my colleague Senator Gerba. Indeed, it was clear during the hearings that several senators were concerned about this very issue of working children feeding their families. Thank you, Senator Gerba.

I do want to try to explain the context in which this amendment is being made, however, as this is a transparency bill. So, I repeat, as I have said several times, that the obligation of the companies, at this stage, is to report using this section to which Senator Gerba refers; therefore, this report must include a series of information items, and now, we will have to add information on the presence or absence of compensation measures for families.

I repeat, this bill is a transparency bill and it does not oblige companies, in the short term, to have compensation measures, but it obliges them to report publicly and transparently on whether or not they have compensation measures for vulnerable families. So, I don’t know if you see the difference, but it’s important to say it; it’s a first step and it’s a transparency bill. Obviously, if enterprises don’t provide the information requested in this report, there can be a penalty.

Senator Gerba: Thank you for that clarification. The measures I am proposing in this amendment are, truly, remedial measures. I think that it is important to think about this at the moment and to include them, even if it means that companies have to prove to us whether they have indeed taken them into account or not, as you say. It’s a first step, as I said, a very important first step, but it’s always at the beginning that we have to think about all the possible consequences of our actions. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Senator Miville-Dechêne, as the sponsor of this bill, you are comfortable with Senator Gerba’s amendment, and you feel that it’s needed. Would any other senators like to speak?

Senator Omidvar: I am not clear if Senator Miville-Dechêne is in support of this amendment or not because I heard her say that the bill is about a first step in getting transparency, whereas what Senator Gerba is suggesting is, in fact, a remedy. I need to hear from Senator Miville-Dechêne in clear language whether she supports this or whether she thinks this amendment is out of scope in the way she has constructed this legislation.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I will answer you in English to be sure that I’m clear. I said that I welcome this amendment by Senator Gerba because it addressed an issue that was important and raised many times during the study.

What I said — and this is more of a clarification on what the amendment of Senator Gerba does or does not do — is that the obligation in this bill is to report. Now we have another piece of information that the enterprises have to report on, and it is whether or not they have a program of compensation for vulnerable families. A transparency bill does not obligate companies to do so-and-so — for example, getting rid of all forced labour in one year. There is no obligation of that type. The obligation is to report on their efforts. Senator Gerba’s amendment is completely in scope, but I just wanted to say that it couldn’t force the enterprise to have compensation plans. It just obligates them to report on whether or not they have compensation plans.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you.

The Chair: Any other senators? Seeing none, are there any objections to the motion in the amendment being adopted? If there are none, then it is agreed.

Senator Klyne: I’m just curious about what the intent was of Senator Miville-Dechêne’s comment because it suggests that the amendment would impose upon an entity more than the bill was intended to do. Maybe I misinterpreted that.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: This is not what I meant, Senator Klyne. On the contrary, I think it’s important, among the information that is asked of a company, to have them think about what happens in the future after they have “cleaned” their supply chain.

So it’s a new obligation in the sense that a company has to put in the report if they have compensation plans or not, but it’s not a new obligation in the sense that they don’t have to have a plan. They have to declare if they have a plan or if they do not have a plan. It’s a transparency bill because putting this information out there publicly means that the company has some pressure to act. If they put out a report where they say they don’t have a plan to diminish forced labour, or they don’t have a plan for this or for that, then they will be seen as not acting responsibly either by the consumers or by the human rights groups who will read the reports.

That is why I’m talking about a transparency plan. It’s a transparency bill. It is a tool to have the companies start to think and report on the ways they are doing business to eventually clean up forced labour and child labour from their supply chain.

Senator Klyne: If I may, Madam Chair, I understand that. As a transparency bill, I fully understand that and I appreciate that being in the bill.

I guess it does another thing. While they report on the information in their annual report — what they have done to remedy or identify and mitigate or eliminate — they are perhaps sending the one or two people that are involuntarily under labour or underage without income back to another family. It kind of suggests that that family should be compensated now. That is really what is out there, where the company or the entity might be exposing themselves to — okay, so what are you going to do to compensate the family now that you have taken somebody that was supporting the family off the payroll? I’m okay with that as well. I just wanted to make sure that was what was intended and what is accepted. Thank you.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Mediation is not only to get rid of some employees. It’s also to determine what the consequences are and what happens because one of the things we want, for example, is that those children would go back to school. To go back to school, they would need money. They would need compensation. I’m not saying it’s easy and I’m not saying all companies will do it, but it’s where we want to go. It’s a violation of human rights to hire underage children or have forced labour. The idea is compensation can be a way to go.

The Chair: I don’t know if I should ask you this question or Senator Gerba. We’re putting the responsibility on the companies to pay compensation? How would that be enforced?

Senator Gerba: I would like to add something.

[Translation]

We don’t force companies. We are forcing companies to be transparent and we are trying to see how these companies can have social responsibility. It’s good for their image, it’s good for the company, and it allows us to see that these companies remedy the socio-economic consequences of the decision not to hire a child, the decision to respect the law. It’s really not an obligation in the law, but it’s an obligation of transparency.

As Senator Miville-Dechêne said, transparency is required through the report, and the report will be judged by consumers. It will be a bit like the certification process that the president of Ecofruit mentioned. It is in order to be well perceived by consumers and to allow these children to have something to help their parents, to allow these families not to suffer the effects of the law indirectly.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: If I can add, there is no enforcement on the fact that they do or do not have a compensation plan.

Senator Gerba: Exactly.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: The enforcement will only be to determine whether they reported truthfully, without lying. Did they report truthfully about the existence, or not, of a compensation plan and of their efforts? This is the big difference. That’s why we’re calling it a first step in this direction of more responsibility by an enterprise on this issue.

Senator Klyne: I didn’t have time to really study this. As you know, I’m substituting for Senator Bernard. I didn’t see any whistle-blower protection in here. That would almost be instrumental, but it’s not directly related to this motion. I leave that as an issue in the parking lot if somebody wants to cover it off later.

The Chair: That is a whole bill itself which is on my radar, but thank you. Yes, I hear you.

Any other senators? Seeing none, are there any objections that the motion and the amendment be adopted? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 6, as amended, carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 7 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 8 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 9 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 10 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Senators, if I go too fast for you, please don’t hesitate to call out to me.

Are there any objections that clause 11 carry?

Senator Gerba: Yes. Madam Chair, it is the same amendment that we just discussed.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: It is the same amendment, but the first one is applied to federal institutions and this one is applied to entities. The law is divided in two different sections therefore the same obligations apply to federal institutions and to entities, so it’s a mirror amendment for the entities this time.

The Chair: Senator Gerba, would you like to read this amendment?

Senator Gerba: Yes, thank you.

[Translation]

That Bill S-211 be amended in clause 11, on page 6, by adding the following after line 25:

[English]

The Chair: Are there any objections that the motion in amendment be adopted?

Senator Gerba: Sorry, Madam Chair.

[Translation]

This one is for clause 11, on page 6, by replacing line 27 by what I just read, actually.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any objections that the motion and the amendment be adopted? If none, it is agreed.

Senator Gerba: Thank you.

Senator Omidvar: I have an amendment to clause 11, page 7, line 12. Would you like me to read it out?

The Chair: Yes, please read the amendment.

Senator Omidvar: This is a rather straightforward amendment.

I move:

That Bill S-211 be amended in clause 11, on page 7, by replacing line 12 with the following:

“(b) the signature of one or more members of”.

Now, colleagues, we all know we do not live in manual times anymore, and my amendment simply removes the word “manual” so that, in fact, reports can be filed using electronic signatures.

The Chair: Thank you, Senator Omidvar. Are there any objections that the motion in amendment be adopted? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 11 —

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: Madam Chair, may I return to clause 11? Because of the new amendment, the line referred to has changed. I was proposing to amend clause 11 on page 7 by replacing line number 13.

[English]

The Chair: Senators, just give us a moment.

Senator Gerba: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any objections that clause 11, as amended, carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 12 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 13 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 14 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 15 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 16 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 17 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 18 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 19 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 20 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 21 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 22 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 23 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 24 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 25 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 26 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 27 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 28 carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that clause 1, which contains the short title, carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that the preamble carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that the title carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that the bill, as amended, carry? If none, it is agreed.

Are there any objections that the Law Clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make technical, numerical and typographical changes and adjustments to the amendments adopted by this committee? If none, it is agreed.

Senators, we have a request for observations. Are there any objections to proceeding in camera? There are none.

(The committee continued in camera.)

(The committee resumed in public.)

The Chair: Are there any objections that I report this bill as amended with observations to the Senate?

If none, it is agreed. Thank you, senators.

Senators, we have concluded our scheduled business for today. Is there any further business? If there is no other business, honourable senators, this meeting is adjourned. I wish all of you well and thank you for your cooperation. Have a good evening.

(The committee adjourned.)