Foreign Affairs Committee on March 9th, 2023

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[Dr. Diane Francoeur]

—and we hope to be able to answer your questions.

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

I'm sure you have important things going on, but it's been over eight minutes that the witness has been speaking. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, absolutely. That's fair enough.

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

I appreciate the testimony, but I wanted to flag that it's our question time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

As you know, I do let it slide. I allowed it to slide when it was your slot to speak as well.

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

It's been eight minutes, though.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We will open it to members for questions. The first question goes to Mr. Genuis.

You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I hope you'll be as liberal with my time as you've been thus far.

I want to start by asking Dr. Kanem from the UNFPA whether the UNFPA believes that human rights are universal and indivisible.

[Dr. Natalia Kanem]

Mr. Chair, am I directed to respond?

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

Yes, you can just go back and forth. You don't need the chair to step in.

[Dr. Natalia Kanem]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Yes, indeed, the UNFPA has that belief.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Does the UNFPA believe that the one-child policy implemented in China by the Communist Party constituted a violation of fundamental human rights?

[Dr. Natalia Kanem]

Typically, as a member agency of the UN, we do not comment on member states' internal decisions. However, speaking for the platform of UNFPA, we are very clear that we stand behind voluntary decisions by women and couples regarding their reproductive decisions.

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

Thank you, Doctor.

Respectfully, I think it will be pretty clear to the folks listening that you didn't answer my question. My question was, do you believe that the one-child policy was a violation of fundamental human rights?

[Dr. Natalia Kanem]

From the perspective of UNFPA's position—and actually, this is a United Nations position—that women and couples have the right to decide the number and spacing of their children, this is what we espouse in every country where we work.

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

Is it correct to infer from that statement that you do believe that the one-child policy and any policies that cap the number of children a family can have constitute a violation of fundamental human rights?

[Dr. Natalia Kanem]

It is, in fact, our belief that these decisions are made by couples. However, it is not the United Nations Population Fund that ascertains this term “violation” that you're using. Within our mandate, we actually fall under.... It's the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights that determines violations. We are a reproductive health and rights service agency. We are not mandated to decide on violations.

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

Okay, so if I understood that answer—

[Dr. Natalia Kanem]

I was trying to be as comprehensive and direct as possible.

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

Okay.

If I understand that answer, then, you're saying that determining whether or not the one-child policy was a violation of human rights is outside of the competency of your organization, and I should direct that question to a different agency. Is that a fair synopsis of what you just said?

[Dr. Natalia Kanem]

It is, indeed.

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

Okay. Thank you.

Of course, in determining the partners you work with and the organizations and governments you work with, I hope you keep in mind human rights considerations when you're determining those points of co-operation. UNFPA has been criticized for working with actors who are clearly involved in coercive population control policies in China, but also in Mexico and India.

What is your response to the allegations that your organization has collaborated in substantial and meaningful ways with organizations that are implementing coercive population control policies?

[Dr. Natalia Kanem]

I thank you for this question, because UNFPA is pained by these allegations, and where investigated, they have consistently been found not to be the case.

In particular, as I alluded to earlier, our mandate is based on principles that are long-standing over the 53-odd years that we have been working. The term “voluntary” is there precisely because the rights issue comes down to individual choice.

UNFPA does not co-operate with, nor do we uphold any coercive practices.

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

Doctor, there are a couple of data points I'd appreciate your response to. Is it true or not true that in 1983 the UN Population Fund gave an award of over $12,000 to China's family planning chief? Is it true or not true that the UNFPA was involved in creating an information-gathering system that facilitated China's one-child policy?

I have a BBC article from 2014 that talks about the involvement of the UN Population Fund in funding an “ambitious population control programme” that had coercive elements during the 1975 Emergency in India.

There was a recent report by the National Human Rights Commission in Mexico that points a finger at the National Population Council of Mexico working with the collaboration and support of UNFPA on coercive family planning, including involuntary sterilization.

Are those reports from those various organizations inaccurate, in your view?