Foreign Affairs Committee on March 28th, 2022

[Rakesh Patry]

You have my apologies. I think that would fall under the purview of the Canada Border Services Agency. As an enforcement agency, I know that they have guidelines around the information that they can share, both publicly and with other federal departments. I think it would be more appropriate for the Canada Border Services Agency to comment on whether that is possible.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Coming back to the January 2021 business advisory that we are discussing here today, that advisory included a number of things, including a study on forced labour and supply chain risks. Is that study ongoing or has it been completed?

[David Hutchison]

I'm pleased to inform the committee that the study is complete and will be released in the very near future on the Global Affairs website.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much. I appreciate your letting the committee and all Canadians know that.

There was a CBSA policy memorandum in May of 2021, which I imagine you're familiar with, and in November of 2021, as we just discussed, there was that first seizure. Can you give us a sense of how Canada's measures relate to what other countries are doing?

For example, in December President Biden signed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. That is now law, I believe, in the United States. It includes a rebuttable presumption that assumes all goods from Xinjiang are made with forced labour, and it bars imports unless it can be proven otherwise.

Can you give us a sense of where Canada might be going? Are we looking at something similar? What are your comments with respect to the American approach?

[Rakesh Patry]

I would say that Canada has demonstrated a commitment to addressing issues of forced labour, regardless of where it's taking place in the world. There are a number of different initiatives taking place across government to try to address some of these initiatives. I won't go into all the details of that here, but I'm happy to speak in more detail about some of those.

Two of the most notable commitments are perhaps the commitment from the Minister of Labour's mandate letter, along with other ministers, to introduce supply chain legislation requiring companies to report on abuses within their supply chains, coupled with the ban that we introduced as part of our CUSMA obligations. I would point out that Canada is only the second country in the world to introduce such a ban, after the United States, which has had this ban in place since the 1930s.

As I noted at the outset, global supply chains have become remarkably complex, and it is challenging to trace supply chains with any degree of thoroughness. The approach that Canada has taken is to include this prohibition under the customs tariff. The obligation ultimately rests with industry and companies to have awareness of their supply chains and ensure that they are complying with the legislation. As we move towards introducing supply chain legislation, we hope that this will aid companies in doing some of that tracing and that work to ensure they are complying with the importation ban.

As I noted at the outset, the Canada Border Services Agency treats this on a case-by-case basis and works closely with importers to ensure they are complying with their obligations.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you for that. I appreciate the explanation of our own policy.

What I'm wondering is whether you can elaborate on why it is, in your opinion, that you don't feel a rebuttable presumption would be appropriate. To my mind, that would be a very interesting avenue to look at and certainly one that is far more straightforward.

Is there anything in that approach that you're concerned about?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

We need a brief answer, please, in the interest of time.

[Rakesh Patry]

Very briefly, Mr. Chair, each regime and government needs to decide within their own legislation what enforcement actions are more feasible.

The one thing I will note around rebuttal or presumptive bans is that there are challenges, as I said at the outset, in ascertaining on a shipment-by-shipment basis.... One of the biggest challenges faced are that goods coming into Canada tend to be labelled by country of origin and not by region of origin. It can be difficult, particularly with complex supply chains, to know where any one ingredient in a product, or material in a product, emanates from.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Bendayan.

Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor for six minutes, please.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

At the beginning of her remarks, Ms. Chen referred to some extremely disturbing reports of situations that, in my view, meet the definition of genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to which Canada is a party. I will quote from Article II:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts...: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

This means that all five of the acts described need not be committed to conclude that genocide is occurring; one is sufficient. A number of countries appear to have concluded that some of these conditions have been met, such as the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Belgium, the Czech Republic, and even the United States, in a March 21 statement explicitly calling on the government of the People's Republic of China to end its genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang.

Here in Canada, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the House of Commons have concluded without the slightest opposition that genocide is currently taking place in Xinjiang, but curiously, Global Affairs Canada still refuses to acknowledge it. There is talk of concern, of course, but it's as if everything that is clear to many people, including Canadian parliamentarians, is not clear to Global Affairs Canada, so much so that no mention of the situation can be found on the government's travel advisory website. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was asked about it last Thursday and again refused to specifically call it genocide.

What's stopping Canada from recognizing, as the United States does, that what's happening in Xinjiang is genocide?

[Jennie Chen]

Thank you for this important question.

As Minister Joly stated in front of this committee last week, we take calls for a declaration of genocide very seriously. This is a decision for the government to make. As officials, we will provide that advice to ministers when that time comes.

That being said, given the body of research and information available to date, Canada has already taken a number of concrete actions, some of which you are aware. In June 2021, we led a joint statement in the Human Rights Council, expressing serious concerns about human rights violations in China. In March of 2021, we imposed sanctions on four individuals and one entity. This was the first time we imposed sanctions on China since 1989.

Of course, in January, as we've just discussed, we imposed a number of new measures strengthening our ability to conduct responsible business and working to prevent forced labour in Canadian supply chains.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I don't want to interrupt you, I'm not in the habit of doing so, but the question I asked was more like, what's stopping Canada from recognizing this as genocide?

You stated that Canada is expressing serious concern, but I have to say that it's not speaking with one voice. The executive branch expresses concern, while the legislative branch acknowledges the existence of genocide. Canada seems to have a bipolar approach to this issue, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Chen told us moments ago that they would advise the Minister in due course. What does in due course mean, when the United Nations high commissioner for human rights is scheduled to visit Xinjiang in the next few days?

Is there a sense that Ms. Bachelet will be given full access to everything she plans to see to produce a report?

Can Ms. Chen tell us whether the findings of this report will be instrumental in determining when to actually recommend to the Minister that she comply with the House of Commons decision and acknowledge that genocide is taking place in Xinjiang?

[Jennie Chen]

Yes, we are aware that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Madame Bachelet, is planning a visit to China to Xinjiang with a view to conducting an investigation over allegations of egregious human rights violations. We strongly urged the Government of China to extend the same level of transparency and openness that is provided to all other similar visits undertaken by her and/or other UN special rapporteurs. If this standard is not met, we will say so. We will be watching the developments closely and we look forward to the release of her report.

As to possible decisions emanating from the outcomes of her visit, we're not in a position to speculate as to what those outcomes might be. Please be reassured that we will be looking at all options very closely and watching developments very closely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron and Ms. Chen.

We will go to Ms. McPherson.

Good morning, Ms. McPherson. You have six minutes, please. The floor is yours.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and good morning to my colleagues.

Good morning to the witnesses. Thank you very much for joining us today.

I wanted to start with discussing how this, I believe, requires urgent action. I was part of the international human rights subcommittee that did the study in 2020. It found that what is happening in Xinjiang against the Uighur people is, in fact, genocide, yet we have not seen a lot of action from the Canadian government since then.

One comment that was part of the opening statement today was with regard to the legislation that is expected. Can we get more clarity on how that legislation has progressed? When can we expect it to be tabled? Will that legislation have implications on procurement for the government as well as procurement for the private sector?

I'll start there and then I have some follow-up questions on that.

[Jennie Chen]

For clarification, is this in reference to the forced labour legislation?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, it is.

[Jennie Chen]

Okay.

Mr. Patry, may I invite you to address this question?

[Rakesh Patry]

Certainly. I'd be happy to.

I would say that the ministers' mandate letters—the Minister of Labour, along with the ministers of international trade, public services and procurement and public safety—do have commitments to introduce legislation, what we refer to as “supply chain legislation”. I can't provide you with any specific timelines on when that supply chain legislation would be introduced. What I can say to you is that, whenever any country is looking at introducing supply chain legislation of this nature, there are, generally speaking, a few key pieces of policy that need to be determined or ascertained prior to introducing legislation of this nature.

The first question is whether the type of legislation should be what is referred to as “transparency” or “due diligence” legislation. The second would be a question around the scope of how broad the legislation should be, whether it should cover forced labour solely, for example, or whether it should be expanded, as some governments have done, to cover more broadly human rights abuses or labour rights abuses generally. The third question is the degree or scale of entities that need to be captured with the legislation. The fourth question is really around what compliance and enforcement look like, whether you take approaches such as what the U.K. and Australia have done or take more robust enforcement measures such as what the French government has done.

These are all policy questions that are being worked through currently, but I cannot provide you with a timeline at this point, I regret, as to when the government may choose to introduce that legislation.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Other legislation that has been brought forward in other countries has been looked at, which is good to hear, of course, and I would submit that it is pressing that we actually get this legislation done and stop talking about the potential or the commitment within mandate letters. It's actually quite important that it is brought forward.

One of the things that you also spoke about is the ability for the trade commissioner support to be withheld. I do have some questions on that.

I've done a lot of work with regard to the CORE, the ombudsperson who of course works with Canadian mining companies working abroad. We have found that many of the companies that would be or could be sanctioned are not eligible for that trade support anyway. It is very much an empty threat, in that the companies aren't eligible for the trade support so threatening to take away that support is not terribly compelling.

When you add that to what my colleague Mr. Chong has brought forward—if companies don't feel like participating, they're not obligated to do so—it does very much feel like there is a gap in this. Is there any intention to close some of those gaps or to fix some of what I see as a flaw?

[Jennie Chen]

Mr. Hutchison, it's over to you.

[David Hutchison]

Thank you for the question.

I think you may appreciate that I'm not in a position to speculate on the intention of the government to address gaps or issues of that matter.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

All right. I'm going to ask a couple of questions, then, in terms of some of the human rights questions. In the opening statement, there was discussion about the gendered violence that we've seen against the Uighur people. Obviously, there are widespread reports of sterilization, rape and forced birth control—really quite shocking examples of gendered violence.

We expect to have a feminist foreign policy in this country, which would be a good framework for us to work within. Do you have any indication of when we could expect to see that feminist foreign policy?

[Jennie Chen]

I do not currently have any information about when we would be able to see any updates on our feminist foreign policy.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Because, of course, having the feminist foreign policy in place and being able to use it as a tool would come in very handy when we look at things like what is happening in Xinjiang, and also, of course, what is happening in other places in the world, like Afghanistan and like Ukraine. We have been told that it is coming. It would be wonderful to see that come forward.

The final question I'll ask very quickly is this: Does the government plan on advocating for a release of Uighur human rights defenders, including Canadian citizen Huseyin Celil?