Foreign Affairs Committee on March 28th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Genuis, go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

I think you get the sense that there is a great deal of anticipation around the government's legislation on forced labour. This was something that I think all the parties were pushing for in the last election. More needs to be done. I hope we see that legislation very soon. I hope we have sufficient time in this Parliament to really study it, analyze it, amend it and sink our teeth into it, and that we don't get into the situation we're sometimes in where the government waits until the last minute and then says that we have to pass this quickly without sufficient review or else it won't get done.

Again, that's up to the government, not up to you, but I want to put it on the record and to state our position. We are very much hoping to see that legislation include procurement and action by the government as well as by the private sector. It's not reasonable, it seems, for the government to say that private companies should do certain things in terms of combatting forced labour, yet not be required to do the same itself. Government should be leading by example, in the requirements around government procurement and government action as well.

We've seen government entities being really behind on this, and maybe a good place to go in terms of a question is the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board investing in companies like Dahua and Hikvision, which are operating and producing technology that is used in the repression of Uighurs. I know CPPIB falls under the authority of the Department of Finance, but I wonder if the witness can comment on the impact on Canada's reputation of our pension fund investing in technologies that are facilitating, I would argue, this kind of abuse.

[Jennie Chen]

This question is an important one. As you mentioned, unfortunately, we do not have any representatives from Finance Canada here with us today. They would be in the best position to respond to this inquiry.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay.

This is something that I hope would be considered in upcoming legislation as well. We've talked a bit about some of the international comparisons. It seems to me that the United States has been ahead of us on this, really working in a bipartisan way to get legislation passed. We're hearing from our witnesses that it's sometimes very difficult to unravel supply chains and track information.

Doesn't that mean we should be doing more to align our approach with that of other countries and be sharing information? Why don't we have an international agreement among like-minded countries—a North American approach—or a broader approach among like-minded countries to ensure that we're just constantly sharing information about entities that companies should be avoiding? Why aren't we moving in that direction?

[Jennie Chen]

Mr. Chair, I would invite Mr. Patry to respond to this question.

[Rakesh Patry]

Thank you for the question.

I would say a couple of things. First, on the point about the U.S. being ahead of us on the curve on legislation, I would just clarify on that point that the U.S. has not introduced supply chain reporting obligations on their entities, so the type of legislation we're talking about is not something that has been enacted in the U.S. as of yet. However, as we noted, they're certainly well ahead of us in terms of implementation of the ban. There are basically two complementary pieces that we're potentially looking at here. If Canada were to introduce supply chain reporting obligations of the type that the U.K., Australia, France, the Netherlands and others have introduced, we would potentially be the first country in the world to have those supply chain reporting obligations coupled with an import ban. As I noted, the U.S. is the only other country in the world to have an import ban in place to date.

I think there is a recognition that a lot more needs to be done in the way of international coordination on this issue. We have seen the issue taking greater prominence over the last few years, which I think is an excellent thing, but we do recognize that there is more that could be done in the way of international coordination. These discussions are taking place at the ILO. They are taking place at the G7.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

I will squeeze in just one more thing with the time I have. In the last Parliament, the subcommittee did a report on the Uighur genocide. The government accepted some of the recommendations, and in other cases “took note” of the recommendation, which usually means they don't agree with it. Recommendation seven, in particular, called on the government to “undertake a review of Canadian equipment and technologies exported to China to better understand how they are being utilized by end-users in that country.”

What is being done to ensure that Canadian technology isn't used as part of repression? If we run out of time, perhaps you could respond in writing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

We need a brief answer, please.

[Jennie Chen]

Mr. Hutchison, I'd invite you to respond to this question.

[David Hutchison]

What I would propose, since we don't have export control colleagues with us today, is that we provide a response in writing to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much.

Our final intervenor in this round is Mr. Zuberi, please, for five minutes.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you again to all the witnesses.

I want to shift focus for a moment and pick up on some remarks that were made around what's happened in America around the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act. Right now, there is, to use lay terms, reverse onus, where products that are believed to be produced in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region are not entering the country.

There is a list that America is currently using in order to do that. Have you taken note of this list and gone through it to see if these companies should be also examined here in Canada?

[Jennie Chen]

Mr. Patry, could I ask you to respond to this question?

[Rakesh Patry]

We are aware of the list. The Canada Border Services Agency is aware of the list as well, but I'm afraid I can't speak to how they may be utilizing the list in their enforcement.

It is a list of goods in the U.S. that they presume to be at risk of potential exposure to forced labour, but I can't speak to whether the Canada Border Services Agency is using that list in their enforcement actions.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I know you're not the CBSA, but I would ask that, beyond awareness, we actually examine the list to determine if those companies should indeed be prevented from bringing goods into Canada.

Again on the same theme, just for the record—what is actually out there—we know of what's properly known as the Uyghur Tribunal, with eminent jurists in the U.K. For example, Sir Geoffrey Nice, was a lead prosecutor in the Milosevic trial.

In terms of that tribunal, on December 9, 2021, through the evidence they collected from first-hand witnesses and other experts, they concluded that a genocide was in fact occurring. They concurred with our House of Commons. For the reasons of birth control and sterilization, this tribunal determined that genocide was in fact occurring.

Beyond taking notes, have you studied this legal opinion and decision from the tribunal?

[Jennie Chen]

I have read the report and the findings of this important tribunal. As mentioned earlier, we believe it's important to build a very good body of research and information regarding the situation in Xinjiang. Again, we are looking forward to ongoing reporting and research, including the outcomes of Madam Bachelet's visit to Xinjiang in May.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Excellent.

We know thus far that four individuals and entities have been sanctioned by our government. With all we've heard here, including in your opening remarks, of grave and serious human rights abuses, of hundreds of thousands of children being forcibly separated from their families and their parents—we all are parents—are we looking at having more than simply four sanctioned? I believe that this goes well beyond four individuals.

Are we looking at more than simply four being sanctioned, to prevent what's happening right now and that we know is happening right now?

[Jennie Chen]

The steps we took in March 2021 were very important. That is one step we have taken. We have a comprehensive approach to addressing human rights concerns in Xinjiang. Sanctions are just one tool in our tool kit. Again, specific to the sanctions themselves, it is one step. It does not preclude further action down the line.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I'll conclude by noting that the two who are currently being held in Guantanamo have been security cleared by the Americans. They have Canadian connections here.

I know it's challenging for us to talk about that type of subject, but it's also important to note on the record. Are you aware of these two people who have a Canadian connection? Have they indeed been security cleared by the Americans? Have you verified that?

[Jennie Chen]

I do not have any information on those particular individuals at this time.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Would you be kind enough to educate yourselves about the situation?

[Jennie Chen]

Yes, we'll take note of it and we will conduct further research. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Of course. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

We'll have to leave it there. Thank you very much, Mr. Zuberi.

Colleagues, collectively I'd like to thank the team of senior officials from ESDC and Global Affairs for being with us today.

I also thank them for the work they are doing.

We will let you disconnect.

Could I keep members online just for hopefully no more than a few minutes? I'd like to raise an issue of housekeeping with you relating to Thursday's meeting, which is scheduled to be on Ukraine.

Colleagues, I'm in conversations with the vice-chairs and Ms. McPherson on how to best utilize the committee's time with respect to managing our work. We have top-level discussions in the subcommittee. We then have a need to often tweak and adjust witness lists, the timing of work plans, budgets and other issues. That's a conversation that's taking place separately.

Today what I wanted to flag with you in that context is just a brief revisiting of the original work plan on the Ukraine meeting number three, which is on Thursday, and to flag with you that the work plan was developed prior to the invasion by Russia of Ukraine. My question to you is whether you would agree to mandate or task the analysts to have a look at this work plan to bring it up to date in light of current circumstances to bring the best possible witnesses we can take on board for Thursday to allow us to take account of the changed facts and really move forward.

If we kept the original work plan, which is in the committee's hands, that's the status quo. If you take no decision, the original work plan governs, but it would take us backwards in terms of the timing and the conversations, which in many respects have already happened.

I just wanted to get your thoughts with the recognition that we will continue a conversation on how to best utilize the committee's more administrative time in managing our work.

I now give the floor to Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd just like to point out that I find your suggestion most appropriate. I will take the time to hear my colleagues' arguments but, at first blush, I would be inclined to enthusiastically support your suggestion.