CIIT Committee Meeting

     We are in public.

    To those at home, this is meeting 122.

    Mr. Savard-Tremblay, you have a motion. I'd like you to read that back, please.

    Okay. I'll read the motion again, since we're now in public:

    That is a motion on the floor.

    Mr. Sidhu.

    Thanks to the member opposite for bringing this important topic to the floor here today.

    This is very important legislation. It's a very important priority for our government, but as you know, it's not straightforward. We have to consult with many different stakeholders. At this moment, that is what the government is undertaking. I think it's very important for those watching at home to know that this is a key priority for us.

    Unfortunately, we all know what's happening in the House of Commons right now. The Conservatives continue to gum up the House. If Mr. Savard-Tremblay is truly serious about this legislation, will he commit right here and right now for the Bloc to vote for closure, so we can bring this very important legislation to the floor of the House of Commons?

     I think it's very important that people watching at home understand your commitment to this legislation.

    Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Jeneroux.

    It's on the relevance of the Liberals'...and Mr. Sidhu saying that it's the Conservatives gumming up the House. The Liberals could very well table the documents, and we could get on with the business of the House.

     Thank you. That's not quite a point of order, Mr. Jeneroux, but thank you very much.

    Mr. Desjarlais, you're up.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I want to thank my Bloc colleague for raising this incredibly important issue.

    I know, as a representative of Canada's labour party, that this has been an outstanding issue for Canadians, for workers across the country and for our solidarity with workers of goods no matter where they are.

    The provisions related to workers' rights are important for Canadians. They're important for workers across the country. Canada needs to take a serious role in achieving the means that this committee was unanimous toward. There's a timeline associated with the motion that was made in this committee to ensure that these workers had a piece of legislation that Canada could ensure we read, review and get done, so we can get to the point of better advancing the protection of rights for workers.

    I totally understand my colleague Mr. Sidhu's situation related to the issues related to the House of Commons. The debate there is problematic for Canadians. It is slowing down the work of Parliament. I'd suggest to my honourable colleague from the Conservative bench that all three things can be true in this case.

    First, the requirement for workers to have protections under legislation no matter where goods are produced is critical. It's important, and it's a matter of solidarity of workers across the world.

    The second fact is that in the House of Commons right now, we have a very serious deadlock or gridlock related to the production of SDTC documents. To Mr. Jeneroux's point, I think the government could make a position more relevant to whether those documents would be tabled to end that.

    The last fact is also still true, which is that it's an outstanding promise that's now owed to Canadians. This was something that could have been done before the privilege motion on SDTC, for example. It begs the question as to what the delay is.

    Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

    First, I won't respond to this attempt to bring up the SDTC documents issue. This matter of privilege is already keeping us busy enough in the House. We won't start debating it here too. The member of Parliament is asking me to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. However, the Bloc Québécois's position on this matter of privilege is quite clear in both form and substance. Let's get serious for a minute.

    If this matter were truly a priority for the government, it wouldn't have put the issue in last year's budget—tabled in the third month of the year—in order to state that there would be a bill by the end of the 12th month of that year. The 2023 budget didn't state that consultations would be launched. Not only did the consultations fail to start that year, but it's the only thing that we have now that 2024 is drawing to a close. Again, the 2024 budget, which was also tabled in the third month of the year, stated that we would have a bill by the end of the 12th month of this year.

    At this point, I think that it's a useful motion to remind the government that 2024 is coming to an end. We just don't seem to have the same definition of a priority.

     Thank you.

    Mr. Sheehan, go ahead, sir.

    Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this extremely important issue.

    As Mr. Sidhu has already mentioned, we need to take a look and get these pieces of legislation dealt with through the House of Commons. The filibuster by the Conservatives needs to stop.

    I would also support Mr. Sidhu's suggestion that both the NDP and Bloc work with us, so we can get the forced labour legislation onto the floor.

    We have to deal with this. The government has taken action in supporting a private member's bill by John McKay, Marcus Powlowski and a senator from the other place. That is a good start, but we ought to build and we have to build on it.

    The Prime Minister has placed this priority in four ministers' mandate letters. The Prime Minister recognizes it. The government recognizes it. The election is not until October 2025. We need to get this piece of legislation through Parliament and build on what was already unanimously voted on with the private member's bill from the Liberal member, John McKay.

    I do agree we have to delve into this expeditiously.

    Again, I thank everyone for the conversation on this important matter. It's important, as we take a look at how this trade committee is working with other countries, that we place not just labour issues, which are paramount, but environmental issues and a whole bunch of issues in the trade deals we delve into.

    Thank you.

     Madame Fortier.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I see that the motion calls for the government to follow through on its commitment. I want to take this opportunity to move an amendment to paragraph (c). I believe that it's a friendly amendment.

    The text of the motion in this place currently states that “to date, the government has still not acted, and no bill has yet been tabled.” I would like to make an addition stating that “to date, the government has still not acted, we are still waiting for a government response in accordance with Standing Order 109, and no bill has yet been tabled.” It's simply a matter of adding that this motion does require a government response.

    I have a second amendment to move, but I'll start with this one.

     Thank you.

    We have an amendment on the floor.

    First of all, Mr. Clerk, is the amendment in order?

    Could you repeat it?

    Okay.

    According to my proposed amendment, paragraph (c) would state that “to date, the government has still not acted, we are still waiting for a government response in accordance with Standing Order 109, and no bill has yet been tabled.”

     There's an amendment on the floor.

    Is there any discussion on that amendment?

    Seeing none—

    I personally want to understand the ins and outs of this amendment.

    It's quite simple. We want a government response one way or another.

    We can still report to the House before then, right?

    Yes. However, we're still waiting for a government response.

    I disagree with this, because it will be just another way to delay the matter. Personally, I'm opposed to this amendment.

    Is there any more discussion before we go to a vote on this amendment?

     (Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ryan Williams): The chair's vote breaks the tie. It is defeated.

    Is there any more discussion on the original motion?

    Mr. Baldinelli.

     Thank you, Chair, and thank you, colleagues.

    One of my colleagues talked about mandate letters. Going back to 2021, our own international trade minister's mandate letter says:

    That was in 2021.

     Our committee, based on the government's budget of 2023, saying that it would introduce legislation in a year, wrote to them in November of last year. It's been a whole year, and the government has yet to proceed. They've had sufficient time to act on this.

    I'm pleased to support my colleague's motion.

     I want to make one friendly amendment. I think it's just in terms of wording in the translation. It would have to do with the last paragraph. I'll read what my change is.

    It says, “That the committee report back to the House to express that recourse to these practices, which undermine the fundamental rights of workers, vulnerable people and children....” Instead of the word “inadmissible”, which I think is incorrect, I think it should read, “is totally unacceptable, and that it finds the government's inaction deplorable.”

    Thank you, Mr. Baldinelli.

    I have an amendment. Is there any discussion on that amendment?

    Mr. Desjarlais.

    I totally accept that. I think that's a really appropriate recommendation. You can even use both if you want. It's totally inadmissible and unacceptable. They're both true in this case.

    However, in relation to another word, where it says, “That the committee report back to the House to express that recourse to these practices....” I think that's a translation issue. I'm not sure.

    It's the use of these practices.

    Oh, you mean “to express that the use of these practices”.

    For procedure, we have to deal with the amendment that's on the table first.

     I'm sorry.

    Can we do them together? We might as well do them together.

    There's an amendment on the floor that we're debating. It's hard to amend an amendment. I think we're dealing with the amendment. It's already been placed, unfortunately.

     Mr. Sidhu.

    Can I move a subamendment, Clerk, at this time?

     The subamendment has to be related to the amendment, not to the motion. If you're moving an amendment to the amendment, you can do that, but just not an amendment to the motion.

     Mr. Sidhu, go ahead.

    As Mr. Baldinelli is adding “unacceptable”, I'd like to remove “deplorable” from that same paragraph.

    Your amendment is to remove “deplorable”. Is that correct?

    Yes.

    Now we have a discussion on the amendment to the amendment.

    Are there any questions on the subamendment?

    Seeing none, is anyone against that?

    Mr. Baldinelli, go ahead.

    It doesn't finish the sentence. We're going to be criticizing the government's inaction. If I take out “deplorable”, there is no further word.

     Mr. Sidhu, your amendment as we've read it would end with, “is totally unacceptable and that it finds the government's inaction.”

    If we leave it “is totally inadmissible and that it finds the government's inaction unacceptable”....

    That's why I'm saying we're dealing with the amendment right now and you have a subamendment to the amendment.

    The amendment was, instead of having “inadmissible”, to have “unacceptable and that...the government's inaction deplorable” and eliminate “and unacceptable”. You're making an amendment to the amendment, which would say that you're going to remove “deplorable” and add “unacceptable” back.

    Is that correct?

     Yes.

    Let's use all three.

    Then he wants to go back to the use of “inadmissible”, so it's “totally inadmissible and that it finds the government's action unacceptable”.

    You're amending the amendment back, basically, so I think we—

    I'm taking out a word.

    You're taking out the plural.

    Yes.

    Okay, we have an amendment to the amendment.

     Is everyone in agreement with this subamendment to the amendment? Is anyone against that?

    I'm against the subamendment.

    With that, I'm going to have a vote, Mr. Clerk, on this subamendment to the amendment.

    Could you maybe just repeat exactly what it is, so that everyone knows what they're voting on?

    Okay.

    Is the subamendment, Mr. Sidhu, keeping the word “inadmissible” or removing that word?

    That's not the amendment.

     The subamendment is getting rid of “deplorable” and keeping “unacceptable”, so that's what we're voting on.

    As a matter of clarification, is the subamendment my Liberal colleagues are making right now to remove the word “deplorable” from this motion to deal with forced labour?

    That's correct, and it adds the word “unacceptable” back.

    I understand.

    Is there any more discussion? Is everyone in agreement or do we want to vote?

    (Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ryan Williams): The chair's vote broke the tie, so it's defeated. We're going back to the original amendment.

    Is there any more discussion on the amendment?

    Mr. Baldinelli.

     I'll just repeat what my friendly amendment would read.

    It says, “That the committee report back to the House to express that recourse to these practices, which undermine the fundamental rights of workers, vulnerable people and children, is totally unacceptable, and that it finds the government's inaction deplorable.”

    We have the amendment. Is there any more discussion on this?

    Is everyone in agreement? Does anyone disagree?

    Of course I disagree.

    Would you like a vote?

    Yes.

    Okay, we'll have a vote, Mr. Clerk.

    (Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ryan Williams): Once again, the chair's vote broke the tie. We are now at the main motion.

    Is there any more discussion on the main motion as amended?

    At that point, Mr. Clerk, I'll ask for a vote, please.

    (Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

     Again, the chair's vote breaks the tie. The motion is adopted.

    Seeing no other committee business today, I declare the meeting adjourned.