Evidence of meeting #9 for Canada-China Relations in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was companies.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:15 p.m.
Professor, Human Rights and Contemporary Slavery, Sheffield Hallam University, As an Individual
I think what we found with a lot of legislation around the world that requires companies to report on their actions in regard to forced labour and/or other human rights violations is that these reporting mechanisms do not do enough to impel action, and that's where we really need to be focusing our efforts on.
Asking companies to tell us about what they're doing without saying, “We will act on what you've done” and without having an enforcement mechanism does not go far enough. It just doesn't.
8:15 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
All right.
Thank you, Ms. Murphy.
Professor Dufour, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'd like to talk about how far behind Canada is when it comes to respecting human rights internationally.
I would point to the fact that 75% of the world's mining companies are registered in Canada. There may be a link here, so that's something to explore as well.
Nevertheless, you talked about Germany having what is probably the most progressive law in this area. You mentioned some of the things it covers—human rights, labour rights, environmental protection and so forth—really good stuff.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on what the federal government could take from Germany's law to strengthen what it's doing. The other witnesses can answer as well.
8:15 p.m.
Professor of International Law, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual
Thank you.
You are right, we have a lot of mining companies. Having said that, we have to remember that one thing has been put in place in Canada and that is the office of the ombudsman. This office can receive complaints about the mining industry and other areas, such as the textile industry. So Canada has opened the door, and it prides itself on having mining companies that are more respectful of human rights and the environment than other countries. We have to live up to that.
How could we learn from the German law? Canada can learn a lot from it, because the German law would be easily applicable here. The Germans have simply adopted international standards to which Canada has adhered. They have not reinvented the wheel. I mentioned this in my presentation. They have put in place fairly simple obligations, such as the establishment of a risk management system, risk analysis, the submission of a statement of principles, and the preparation of reports that must be submitted. In addition, they have provided for a whole process of controls and sanctions. Furthermore, a federal office verifies the reports annually, visits the establishments, has the power to investigate and can even order measures under penalty. They have also introduced fines of up to 8 million euros. It's not $250,000, it's €8 million. That can hurt, not to mention there are other kinds of penalties.
I think Canada can truly take inspiration from this if they want things to change. Canada can also proceed in a progressive way, with companies that have a certain size, a certain turnover, transnational assets. Canada could learn from this.
In addition, it could certainly participate in the UN's work on the issue. Canada has never shown up there since 2014, while China participates in the meetings. Canada, on the other hand, does not go.
8:20 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Those who are absent have no voice in the decision-making.
Ms. Murphy, do you have any comments on the German model?
8:20 p.m.
Professor, Human Rights and Contemporary Slavery, Sheffield Hallam University, As an Individual
I'd just add that there are other pieces of legislation that I think the Canadian government could benefit from on this subject. One is the disclosure of customs records, so that people can actually see what is coming into Canada and know what imports are making it to the shelves. This has been a important tool for advocacy groups and for researchers to understand what it is we're buying and what it is we're investing in.
It also will help—
8:20 p.m.
Professor, Human Rights and Contemporary Slavery, Sheffield Hallam University, As an Individual
That's fine. I understand.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
I'm sorry, Dr. Murphy. We're out of time for Mr. Boulerice.
We will now welcome back to the committee Mr. Genuis, for five minutes or less.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Tohti, I didn't want to miss the opportunity while you're here to ask for your reflections on what seemed to be some very exciting developments inside of China.
We're seeing—unprecedented in decades—protesters in various cities across China standing up and speaking out against injustices, some of whom are directly calling for an end to President Xi's regime. Really, these events have been sparked by events in Ürümqi.
Are we seeing common cause being made between Uighurs and their Chinese neighbours? What are your reflections on the significance and impact of these protests for China in general and for Uighurs in particular?
8:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project
Thank you for this question.
Yes, unfortunately, the deaths of 44 Uighurs—not 10—sparked a whole range of anger and uprising, I can say, in the whole of China. In more than 101 cities and 50 universities, people participated and people took to the streets. Some of them openly said, “ jiefàng Xinjiang”—“Liberate Xinjiang”—or “Open up Xinjiang” and that kind of slogan to support the Uighur people.
The anger here is mostly motivated by Xi Jinping's lockdown of more than 100 days without giving any access to basic necessities or to food and medical supplies. In this perspective, Uighurs and Han Chinese share the same suffering and, for that reason, it became a point for motivation.
Also, this tragic incident helped to connect a certain level of solidarity, which we can see inside China and outside China, and we are participating. The Chinese people led memorials across the cities. For that reason, in my opinion, that understanding is very important and should continue.
The Chinese people not only decided on their anger, their reaction, about the COVID lockdown, but at the same time directed their anger directly at Chinese president Xi Jinping and the Communist Party. The most common slogans are “Gongsun dung shate” and “Si jing ping shate”, which means “Down with Xi Jinping” and “Down with the Communist Party”. I think that is important.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you for sharing your perspective on that. I think this is very significant and inspiring. I want to share with you my strong support for the people who are protesting and for their calls for freedom, for justice and for protection of their fundamental human rights. Obviously, a tragic incident sparked this. I think it is quite significant that we see how the deaths of Uighurs have sparked this protest movement, which includes people all across China. It's very significant.
I want to ask about having a more coordinated approach among like-minded allies when it comes both to preventing the importation of products made from forced labour and to trying to prevent investment in companies that are involved in forced labour.
Professor Murphy made the point that products are likely to end up in the countries that have the weakest laws. Maybe the same is true for investment, and that we see investment from countries with the weakest laws. With that in mind, wouldn't it make sense for a group of like-minded countries to get together and say that we're going to have the same rules in place, that we're going to have a coordinated approach and we're going to have the same standards?
Wouldn't that actually make it a lot easier for enforcement as well as a lot easier for businesses? They would be able to apply one standard across all the countries they operate in, and no country would be providing a safe haven. Does that coordinated approach make sense? Why hasn't it happened?
Professor Murphy, maybe we'll start with you. I have very little time, but we'll try to get in as many people as we can.
8:25 p.m.
Professor, Human Rights and Contemporary Slavery, Sheffield Hallam University, As an Individual
Sure.
I've been hearing a call for a multilateral approach from American government officials for two years, now. I don't know what it is that stops other countries from doing it, except that they're anxious about their relationship with China—their trade relationship, in particular. I hear many countries saying, “We are a small country, relative to China. Therefore, we can't poke the bear.”
Since the U.S. has led on this, I think it's possible to follow their momentum. However, when we think about multilateral strategy, we should also think about the way small and medium enterprises can do the same by following the lead of big enterprises. I don't think we need to say that only large investment firms or companies should be held to the standard of good human rights due diligence.
We know small companies are purchasing directly from Xinjiang. We know small investment firms have their money in those companies. What we need is to see a situation where these larger contenders take that step and do the work and due diligence, and stand up and support the smaller businesses and, if we want to call them “smaller countries”....
I don't like that idea. Countries are countries, and they all have a standing in the UN and other international bodies...to stand up against these kinds of human rights violations. Canada needs to do that, too.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Thank you, Mr. Genuis. I'm sorry, but you are out of time.
We will now go to Mr. Fragiskatos for five minutes or less.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Professor Dufour, your commentary on the German law was very interesting, and my question is about the administration of such a law.
Is the administration of this law very difficult, yes or no?
8:25 p.m.
Professor of International Law, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual
It is difficult to answer your question, because the German law will come into force on January 1 next year. However, if I look at the French law, which has been in force since 2017, I can say that it is difficult to implement such laws and that the majority of companies do not manage, for the time being, to implement the law properly.
Some organizations have made studies, analyses and proposals, and France is in the process of revising certain ways of doing things. It is difficult. These are certainly challenges that companies and administrations must meet. That's all I can say for now.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Why are these challenges, in France or in other countries?
8:25 p.m.
Professor of International Law, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual
It's obvious that it's difficult for companies to truly track throughout their supply chain. For this reason, it is mainly companies of a certain size that are required to do this. This means carrying out audits and collecting a lot of information about suppliers. After all, it is the entire supply chain that is targeted, even when it is located abroad.
In addition, we realize that companies are very poorly equipped to carry out this kind of monitoring. As we know, a single device can be made of parts from several countries and different companies.
Sometimes a subcontract is given to one company, and that company will itself give the contract to another company. So it's quite difficult to follow up realistically, but the fact remains that you have to start somewhere. To do this, clear, precise and ambitious normative frameworks need to be put in place.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
My next question is a general one, but I think it is very important.
What key recommendation would you make to the committee?
8:30 p.m.
Professor of International Law, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual
We need to make sure that for its companies, Canada has very strong human rights and environmental frameworks throughout the supply chain.
We have talked about funds investing abroad, but there is also investment in Canadian companies that are directly or indirectly involved in human rights and environmental abuses that occur abroad.
There is therefore a strong need for Canada to adopt a very broad corporate duty of care law.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you once again.
Mr. Chair, this is my last question for Professor Murphy.
Do you think, Professor, that there are ways for Canada to collaborate with middle powers through international forums to achieve precisely some of the outcomes that all of you have been calling for tonight? On its own, I'm not sure that, even if Canada put in the most robust kind of law, it would have much effect, to be frank. In collaboration with other countries, perhaps it is possible to have an effect.
I'm thinking in terms of efficacy. My question before referred to challenges in administration. I don't mean to throw cold water on the ideas; I think there are immense challenges in putting such measures in place to begin with. Maybe it's worth exploring the issue from another avenue, and that is to what extent we can collaborate with other countries so that uniformity in terms of a legal approach is achieved. What do you think?
8:30 p.m.
Professor, Human Rights and Contemporary Slavery, Sheffield Hallam University, As an Individual
I think that kind of multilateral approach is critical. As I said before, the countries that do not have this kind of legislation are going to have the companies that are the dumping grounds for the products made through human rights violations. By not tracing our supply chains entirely, all the way to the raw materials, we make it possible for governments like the Chinese government, authoritarian governments, to hold our supply chains captive.
What that leads to is a lack of competitiveness in the market. It leads to an inability to extract ourselves when there are crises and when there are other kinds of supply chain crises as well. This universal standard of holding companies accountable for knowing where their goods come from addresses a lot of problems that go to food security and national security. These are all things we need to be thinking about.
I think this needs to be a standard with allied nations.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Thank you, Dr. Murphy and Mr. Fragiskatos.
We'll now go to Mr. Bergeron for two and a half minutes.
8:30 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Tohti, when we were interrupted a few minutes ago, you were about to tell us what the repercussions would be for Canadian and Quebec savers in the event of an invasion of Taiwan.
I'll give you the opportunity to continue your answer.
8:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project
There are many witnesses who have already testified in this room. All of them agreed that Xi Jinping is unpredictable and that there's uncertainty in China right now. There are a lot of military activities going on in the Taiwan Strait for a reason. Also, if you look carefully at the closing remarks of the Chinese president Xi Jinping at the recent 2022 Communist Party congress, they were totally different, drastically different, from his traditional comments on China. All of the previous presidents said that the peaceful unification of the motherland with Taiwan was the goal, but this time, the Chinese president said that all options were on the table. That was in his closing speech. That tells you something.
The Chinese president twice ordered the Chinese military to make full preparations for war. That is for a reason, and we have to take those threats or messages seriously.
If that thing were to happen, what's going to happen to our investments? Do we have any idea of the hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in China by the Canada pension plan, provincial pension plans, university endowments and community investments? They are going to be wiped out if the Chinese government blocks the exit of these funds or, because of sanctions, share prices drop, as was the case in Russia? Our invested funds were just wiped out there.
There is great danger, and because of that geopolitical risk, the huge risk, our pension funds should take action and withdraw their investments from China.