Evidence of meeting #5 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was china.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Legal Academic and Journalist, As an Individual
Yes, certainly. China has been using the argument that countries like the United States are extremely hypocritical in commenting on China's Islamophobic policies, given policies such as the Muslim ban. Even beyond the question of hypocrisy, we know that war on terror practices—for example, the representation of growing a beard or wearing a veil as signs of extremism or radicalization, originally promulgated in counter-radicalization programs by such countries as the United States—have served to legitimize China's viralization and extreme extrapolation of this idea to now ban growing beards or wearing hijabs in instruments such as the extremism regulations.
It's vital, then, that we also address the Islamophobia very much present in war on terror practices here, but that is not to excuse what China's genocidal policies are.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Ms. Kanji.
We're going to move into our second round of questions. We'll move to Ms. Khalid for five minutes.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for their very compelling testimony.
I want to pick up on some of the discussions we've had today as well as yesterday. Ms. Kanji, I want to pick up on some of the things you've said with respect to what is happening in China currently. What is the reaction of the other minorities in China or the mainstream Chinese population to what is happening in the Xinjiang province?
12:05 p.m.
Legal Academic and Journalist, As an Individual
There are certainly strong alliances to be drawn between the different experiences of minoritized communities that have been subjugated and suppressed by the Chinese regime. For example, when it comes to Tibet, the Communist Party official responsible for implementing the extremely repressive police state in Xinjiang had previously tested out those measures in the extreme repression of Tibet, which incidentally is also referred to as an autonomous region, and yet we see the irony that it is precisely these regions that are labelled autonomous that have the very possibility of any kind of autonomy and exercise of freedom stripped away from them.
When we look at the situation in Xinjiang, I think we also have to appreciate that it is not only Muslims and Uighurs who are being targeted in this way; rather, they are at the front lines and the sharpest edge of a far broader project of repression. We know that many of these surveillance techniques that were pioneered in Xinjiang are now being exported to other areas of China as well, including in response to the coronavirus pandemic. There are certainly many alliances and solidarities to be drawn between the experiences of different minoritized and repressed groups in China with the plight of the Uighurs in Xinjiang.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you.
Is Mr. Mendes back on? He is.
This is for Mr. Mendes and perhaps Mr. Browder as well. We've spoken a lot over the past couple of days about the necessity to stop forced labour, especially in a country like Canada. Now Canada has set up a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, which is work that this committee has really focused on in the past number of years. I wonder in what way we could use this ombudsperson to have stronger policies with respect to forced labour coming out of human rights abuses like that in China.
12:10 p.m.
Professor of Law and President, International Commission of Jurists Canada
I can address that first.
On the ombudsman, as you know, there's been a controversy about whether or not there are sufficient tools to be able to carry out what some of the NGOs and others wanted it to do. I don't think it's the right mechanism. I think what is the right mechanism is a law that just came into force on July 1, 2020 under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, which now says that importation of forced labour products, either in whole or in part, should be prohibited.
How do we do that? There was a bill, Bill S-211, that was being forwarded by John McKay, one of your colleagues, and a senator, which would require mandatory reporting on whether or not companies have taken all due diligence in making sure that they don't bring in products based on modern slavery or forced labour. Some have said that's not going far enough.
My actual recommendation to this committee and the full committee is to focus on what other countries like France are doing, which I think is the most effective. It requires a law of due diligence that forces companies, in advance, to show that they are not involved in modern slavery or forced labour and requires that the senior officials of these companies state in advance that they have checked to make sure there are no products coming in of forced labour, and there are penalties if they fail to do so.
I think we should look to Europe, to France for sure, to think about how we go further than what we have already. I'm not sure the ombudsman is a sufficient mechanism for that.
July 21st, 2020 / 12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are so many themes to draw on here.
One point I'm taking away from the testimony of Mr. Browder and Ms. Kanji is that it seems that, in international human rights work, we've identified these mechanisms like the Magnitsky act, like doctrines, like responsibility to protect, but all these mechanisms require executive action. In many of these cases, it's not about the tools being available; it's a failure of executive action. I'm wondering if we need to develop these doctrines a little bit by compelling executives more effectively to act in cases like this, introducing maybe automatic triggers that require executives to impose Magnitsky sanctions and recognize genocide to uphold their obligations when they happen.
It hasn't been mentioned, but in the U.S., the imposition of sanctions came about not as a result of the executive acting on their own, but as a result of legislative action through the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, which required the Trump administration to respond.
I'd be curious to hear from Ms. Kanji and Mr. Browder about whether they think we need to move beyond just giving tools to the executive and compel executive action in cases where there is clear evidence of genocide or gross violations of human rights.
Maybe Mr. Browder can go first, and then Ms. Kanji.
12:10 p.m.
Head, Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign
I'll go first.
It's an excellent question and a real issue. In our Magnitsky justice campaign, we always said to ourselves that getting the law passed is only 50% of the work, and then the other 50% is actually getting it implemented.
We found an interesting tool to use in the U.S., because we knew this was going to happen. There is something in the U.S. legislation called the “congressional trigger”. Nothing forces the U.S. government to sanction anybody. They can't be forced. But the congressional trigger does something very interesting. If the chairman and ranking member of one of six committees—the foreign affairs committee, the intelligence committee, etc.—propose a name to the U.S. government, the U.S. government has 120 days to respond: “Yes, we have sanctioned that person under the Magnitsky act” or “No, we haven't, and here is why.” It's as close as we could get to having the legislature force the executive without taking away the independence of the executive—
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Mr. Browder, I'm going to interrupt you for a second and ask you to stop. It's due to interpretation.
What are we looking for, Madam Clerk? Is it a sound issue, or is it speed?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I don't know if speaking a little more slowly will help.
Does the interpreter—
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm actually going to rush you, because—
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We'll give you the time. We'll make sure you get your time, Mr. Genuis.
12:15 p.m.
Emilie Sabor As an Individual
At this point, I believe it's a connectivity issue. I don't believe that improvements can necessarily be made.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We will need unanimous consent to continue. I think I see everybody in agreement. Thank you.
We will continue.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Browder, just because of time, could you tell us...? Basically, it sounds as if you're recommending a mechanism like the congressional trigger for our own legislative framework. Is that correct?
12:15 p.m.
Head, Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign
I would recommend that, if possible, you come up with an amendment to the Magnitsky act that requires either a trigger or some type of compelled reporting to Parliament that gives you more oversight of why sanctions have been applied or have not been applied and that holds the government's feet to the fire.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you.
Ms. Kanji, perhaps you could speak to that in the context of responsibility to protect and the obligations of states under the Genocide Convention. What do you think about the idea of stronger mechanisms to compel executives, things like automatic triggers or reporting requirements?
12:15 p.m.
Legal Academic and Journalist, As an Individual
When it comes to the obligation to prevent genocide—which exists as a treaty obligation for all signatories to the Genocide Convention, even separate from the responsibility to protect—that responsibility is triggered for all states when the objective conditions of a serious risk for genocide occurring exist, as they exist in the case of the Uighurs, and as they exist in the case of the Rohingya.
The obligation is one of taking due diligence. The international system and the International Court of Justice recognize that not all states have equal power with respect to a situation to stop a genocide, but the responsibility of all states is to conduct due diligence to ensure that they are taking all concrete measures they can to prevent a genocide and to stop a genocide that's in action. Those already exist as obligations for Canada under international law. If there is a way of translating that domestically, I agree with Mr. Browder that doing that would be good.
With the Rohingya genocide, we saw a lot of confusion about what the trigger was with regard to the threshold of the duty to prevent genocide and with regard to discussions, even after the label of genocide had been applied, about whether this meant that now Canada's duty to prevent was triggered under the Genocide Convention. To be clear, as soon as the signs of serious risk occur, the duty to prevent is triggered. And I think that exists in the Uighur case.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you very much.
The crucial point is that it is as soon as the risk is present.
Thank you.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal