Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Robert Oliphant

Liberal on Adjournment Proceedings 2026-09-23

509 words · 28 sentences · 35 clauses

Replying to Arnold Viersen (Conservative)

“Madam Speaker, before the government’s summer vacation, I asked the government why it was putting trade talks with the United States in jeopardy to protect the Prime Minister’s corporate friends instead of fighting modern-day slavery. The reality is that since 2021, the Canada Border Services Agency has seized only two shipments of goods that were made using forced labour: a shipment of textiles back in 2024 and a shipment of frozen seafood in 2025. Both of these shipments were subsequently released back to the companies. That is it: these two shipments suspected of slavery stopped in five years. Meanwhile, the United States’ border security stopped over 7,000 shipments, valued at over $75 million, for suspected forced labour violations in just the first six months of this year. The Prime Minister and his government, including the member opposite, love to point to Bill S-211, the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act, as evidence of how tough Canada is. However, I would point out that this law only exists because of the hard work of former Liberal member of Parliament John McKay and Senator Miville-Dechêne, along with the support of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. In fact, the government dragged its feet for years before being forced to take action, so we had to bring in a private member’s bill, Bill S-211. Then we found out last December that the government had quietly changed the directive of Bill S-211 to create an exemption not found in the original legislation, stripping reporting obligations from distributors and retailers who could be profiting from forced labour in their supply chains. Human rights advocates and anti-slavery groups are asking why. The only answer that could be is that it would benefit the Prime Minister’s corporate friends. In fact, I wonder how many of these elite corporate friends were at the Prime Minister’s pre-summit fundraiser last week. We also know that China has been using Canada as a transhipment hub to get its products into the United States because it knows how weak our enforcement has been and how strong the American enforcement has been when it comes to products made by forced labour. It is no wonder the United States is launching a forced labour investigation into our country. We have only stopped two shipments in the last five years. Our supply chain law is secretly watered down to benefit Liberal friends, and the Liberals have been turning a blind eye to China’s use of Canada as a transhipment hub. I and many of my Conservative colleagues have been raising these concerns for years in the House, and former Liberal member of Parliament John McKay has also been urging the government to take more action to fight slavery, but we have seen no action from the government to do anything. The Prime Minister and his government ministers have insisted that Canada’s measures were robust, that they were strong. Really? Then why, after years of declaring that Canada had what it needed to fight slavery in the supply chains, did the government suddenly introduce Bill C-35, an act respecting the prohibition of importing goods produced by forced labour? Perhaps, as with other issues like crime, immigration and housing, the Liberals are suddenly realizing that Conservatives have been right all along. Perhaps Canada needs to fight slavery abroad, and perhaps temporarily stopping one shipment suspected of using forced labour every two to three years is not a robust system. I do not have the time to go into the abandoned CORE office, but the government’s absolute failure to tackle slavery in supply chains has put our CUSMA talks in jeopardy. Did the Prime Minister walk away from the table because the United States demanded we take real action on slavery? Did the Prime Minister walk away from the negotiations because he was not able to get supply chain exemptions to forced labour for his corporate friends? We do not know, because the Liberals will not release the deal that they rejected. What we do know is that Canadians are paying the price for the government’s inaction on modern-day slavery. In my riding of Peace River—Westlock, increased software lumber tariffs are threatening entire—”

Statement grade

Average 76 / 100

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Reasoning 41%Claims 38%Positioning 8%Promise 14%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 56 wordsI think we can all agree in the House that goods that are made with forced labour have absolutely no place in our supply chains.Unearned certainty No one should be trapped in exploitation so others can benefit from lower costs. Canadians all want confidence that our economy is built on fairness and not built on human suffering.Unearned certainty Claims · 22 wordsAs we diversify trade and secure investment, Canada is firmly committed to ensuring our supply chains reflect the highest standards of integrity.Partly on point Reasoning · 37 wordsEnforcing a prohibition on goods produced with forced labour is an inherently complex undertaking, one that our understanding of has been constantly evolving. Global supply chains span multiple jurisdictions, involve numerous suppliers and evolve quickly over time. Claims · 48 wordsAs our understanding evolves, so too must our approach. Over the past several years, Canada has built one of the world’s first frameworks to address forced labour.¹ The import prohibition established in 2020 started an important foundation, ²while the supply chains act increased expectations regarding transparency and reporting.³ Reasoning · 24 wordsHowever, we have long recognized that there have been limitations to this approach. We know that we need to think bigger and do more.Vague promise Claims · 108 wordsThis is why we tabled new legislation in the spring and consulted over the summer on potential supply chain due diligence measures.⁴⁵ Canadian businesses want more clarity, consistency and confidence, and this government is providing exactly that. Our new legislation will allow the government to publish a public list of goods, ⁶which will provide clear directions to CBSA and to businesses on where risk exists. Importers will be required to show detailed supply chain information to prove their products are free of forced labour before they can pass our borders.⁷ This will strengthen our ability to identify, intercept and prohibit goods linked to forced labour at the border. Reasoning · 40 wordsThese measures give businesses clearer expectations, encourage due diligence before goods reach our border and help ensure that companies following the rules are not undercut by those who do not. Competitiveness and responsible business practices are not mutually exclusive goals. Positioning · 22 wordsCanadians want our businesses to succeed. We want Canadian companies to grow, innovate, attract investment, and be competitive on the global stage.Positioning Claims · 15 wordsAt the same time, Canadians expect our markets to operate according to clear, fair rules.Partly on point Reasoning · 44 wordsBy improving transparency and predictability and by strengthening Canada’s approach to forced labour, we are creating an environment where responsible businesses can thrive. We are building a system that Canadians can trust, a system that can also serve as a model for other countries. Positioning · 17 wordsCanada’s economic interests are the interests of our workers, and workers must be central to this approach.Positioning Promise · 32 wordsAs Canada diversifies its supply chains and expands trade relationships, we will continue to support businesses in meeting their obligations, Vague promisewhile ensuring that those that violate laws are always held to account.Hidden agency Reasoning · 6 wordsOur trade must reflect our values. Promise · 38 wordsOur government will always work to ensure we can uphold labour rights, protect Canada’s interests and make Canadian businesses more competitive and prepared in international markets.Vague promise We will promote Canadian interests while upholding labour standards for all workers.Partly on pointVague promise

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 83

5 of 28 deductions are Signal

Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Canadians want our businesses to succeed.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “We want Canadian companies to grow, innovate, attract investment,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “and be competitive on the global stage.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Canada’s economic interests are the interests of our workers,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “and workers must be central to this approach.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 62

16 of 28 deductions are Relevance

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the question on notice, as the member's speech raises it.

Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “I think we can all agree in the House that goods that are made with forced labour have absolutely no place in our supply chains.”A general statement of principle on forced labour that engages the subject but does not answer what was asked.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “No one should be trapped in exploitation so others can benefit from lower costs.”A general principle about exploitation, not a response to the enforcement or trade-talk questions raised.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “Canadians all want confidence that our economy is built on fairness and not built on human suffering.”A general statement about Canadians’ expectations, not an answer to the points put.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “As we diversify trade and secure investment, Canada is firmly committed to ensuring our supply chains reflect the highest standards of integrity.”A general commitment to supply chain integrity without addressing the specific criticisms raised.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “Competitiveness and responsible business practices are not mutually exclusive goals.”A general statement on competitiveness that touches the issue only indirectly.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “Canadians want our businesses to succeed.”A general statement about Canadian businesses, not the enforcement question raised.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “We want Canadian companies to grow, innovate, attract investment,”A general aspiration for Canadian companies, not an answer on forced labour enforcement.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “and be competitive on the global stage.”A general aspiration for Canadian companies, not an answer on forced labour enforcement.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “At the same time, Canadians expect our markets to operate according to clear, fair rules.”A general statement about market rules, not the specific enforcement points raised.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “Canada’s economic interests are the interests of our workers,”A general statement about economic interests and workers, not the specific question raised.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “and workers must be central to this approach.”A general statement about workers’ place in the approach, not the specific question raised.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “As Canada diversifies its supply chains and expands trade relationships, we will continue to support businesses in meeting their obligations,”A general statement about supporting businesses, not the specific enforcement question raised.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “while ensuring that those that violate laws are always held to account.”A general assurance of accountability without addressing the seizure or exemption criticisms.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “Our trade must reflect our values.”A general statement of values, not an answer to the specific points raised.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “Our government will always work to ensure we can uphold labour rights, protect Canada’s interests and make Canadian businesses more competitive and prepared in international markets.”A general commitment on labour rights and trade, not the specific enforcement question raised.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “We will promote Canadian interests while upholding labour standards for all workers.”A general commitment on trade and labour standards, not the specific question raised.

Respect · 100

0 of 28 deductions are Respect

Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.

Nothing lost points.

Clarity · 58

7 of 28 deductions are Clarity

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “we can all agree in the House”Asserts House-wide consensus as fact with no source.
Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “Canadians all want confidence”Claims what all Canadians want without any source.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we need to think bigger and do more”A commitment to act more with no actor, measure or success condition.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we will continue to support businesses in meeting their obligations”Open-ended commitment to keep doing something with no measure or date.
Wording that hides who did something, or who will.What the tags mean “those that violate laws are always held to account”Passive that leaves unnamed who will hold violators to account.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “will always work to ensure”Perpetual commitment with no named measure, date or success condition.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “We will promote Canadian interests while upholding labour standards”Commitment with no measure, date or way to verify success.

Claims · 7

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

1“Canada has built one of the world’s first frameworks to address forced labour”Canada has built one of the world’s first frameworks to address forced labour.search
2“The import prohibition established in 2020”Canada established a prohibition on importing goods produced with forced labour in 2020.search
3“the supply chains act increased expectations regarding transparency and reporting”Canada’s supply chains act (Bill S-211) sets transparency and reporting expectations for businesses.search
4“we tabled new legislation in the spring”The government tabled new legislation on forced labour in the spring of 2026.search
5“consulted over the summer on potential supply chain due diligence measures”The government consulted over the summer of 2026 on potential supply chain due diligence measures.search
6“Our new legislation will allow the government to publish a public list of goods”The government’s new forced-labour legislation would allow it to publish a public list of goods.search
7“Importers will be required to show detailed supply chain information”The new legislation would require importers to show detailed supply chain information proving their products are free of forced labour before crossing the border.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20