Debates of April 21st, 2021

Human Rights

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to ask the hon. members to be considerate. We have a lot of people presenting petitions and only a limited amount of time. If they can be as concise as possible, it would certainly be appreciated.

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

Falun Gong

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two certified petitions from constituents. Both call on the Government of Canada to deploy legal sanctions against certain officials of the Communist Party of China who have orchestrated gross human rights violations against the Falun Gong practitioners.

I have 119 signatures for the first petition and 30 signatures for the second.

Human Organ Trafficking

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

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present to the House today.

The first petition is with respect to Bill S-204, to prohibit forced organ harvesting and trafficking. That bill has just passed the Senate committee and is back for third reading. The petitioners are in support of the bill.

Conversion Therapy

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is about Bill C-6.

The petitioners support a ban on conversion therapy. They ask the government to fix the problems with the definition of conversion therapy to align that definition with definitions of conversion therapy that are used in other bans in other jurisdictions.

Ethiopia

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

Mr. Speaker, the third and final petition draws the attention of the House to the situation in the Tigray region of Ethiopia.

The petitioners call for greater government engagement in response to the humanitarian and human rights challenge in terms of investigation and engagement with the relevant governments.

I commend these petitions to the consideration of all members.

Conversion Therapy

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition signed by Canadians who are concerned about Bill C-6.

The petitioners state that violent, coercive actions that seek to change someone's sexuality against his or her will are unacceptable, but the definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6 is so broad that it captures instances that do not fit that description. They recognize the impact this bill would have on the choices available to Canadians, including the LGBT community.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons to do five things: ban coercive, degrading practices; ensure that no laws discriminate against Canadians by limiting the service they can receive; allow parents to speak with their children about sexuality and gender; allow free and open conversation about sexuality and sexual behaviour; and avoid criminalizing professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to by Canadians.

Receiving counsel from parents, teachers or counsellors can be healthy, and this bill must take into account the benefits of talk therapy to those struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity. These conversations should not be limited by a government that simply cannot know and appreciate the unique needs of every individual. We must respect the choices individuals make in seeking counsel and support. Let us heed the words of these petitioners and fix the definition in Bill C-6.

Sex Workers

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to sponsor petition e-3132, and I am even more pleased to present it today as it received more than 9,500 signatures in very short order.

The petitioners call for the full decriminalization of consensual sex work in Canada. They note that criminalizing sex work was found to be a violation of the right to security of person by the Supreme Court in the Bedford decision of 2013. They point out that instead of decriminalizing sex work, Bill C-36 simply found new ways to make sex work illegal, and the result has been to further endanger sex workers.

In the absence of the legislative review of Bill C-36 that was supposed to take place, the petitioners ask that instead of forcing sex workers to go back to court to protect their rights, the House simply repeal Bill C-36.

The Economy

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to table petition e-3071, which was initiated by Bronwen Brice in Nanaimo—Ladysmith. It has 1,188 signatures.

The petitioners are concerned that the fixation on profit and growth is taking us down a dangerous path leading to a widening gap between rich and poor, spiralling poverty, environmental breakdown and a mental health crisis. They note that GDP growth has been a poor measure of success. It counts polluting factories and the manufacture of weapons, but tells us nothing about the quality of education our children receive, the availability of well-paid and secure jobs or the number of species threatened with extinction, yet GDP growth is still the government's main economic goal.

The petitioners state that a well-being economy would prioritize public health and well-being indicators, reorienting our economy toward what matters most. Scientists have called on governments to shift away from pursuing GDP growth and affluence and toward sustaining ecosystems and improving well-being to tackle the climate crisis. Well-being economics has already been adopted by several jurisdictions.

The petitioners therefore call upon the Government of Canada to discontinue GDP measurement and shift to a well-being economy.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind the hon. members to be as concise and brief as possible.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Pharmacare

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition today signed by many members of my constituency on the subject of pharmacare.

The petitioners note that Canada is the only country that has a universal health care program but does not have universal drug coverage. They call on the government to move expeditiously to put in place universal prescription drug coverage and bring down the price of prescription drugs through a bulk purchasing program at the federal level.

International Trade

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of hundreds of Canadians to present petition e-3181.

The petitioners call on the government to sign onto the temporary waiver that has been proposed at the World Trade Organization of certain trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, or TRIPS provisions, to help more countries access the intellectual property they need to produce vaccines, as part of our moral obligation to the world, to be sure, but also to protect Canadians against the development of new variants and to reduce the economic consequences of the pandemic, as we could be part of a solution to ensure people are vaccinated the world over.

Justice

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the haze of 420 settles, Canadians are still looking for justice. I am pleased to present petition e-2824, sponsored by Louder Together, which seeks to address the over-policing, the over-incarceration and the other disproportionate impacts that criminalization of cannabis has had on Black, indigenous and other racialized Canadians.

The petition calls on the Government of Canada to develop a department for the equality of Black, indigenous and people of colour and to allocate funding for our community initiatives, including harm reduction, PTSD treatment programs, community revitalization programs and the creation of a business development program with the express mandate of creating and funding opportunities for BIPOC in the regulated cannabis sector.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 455 to 458, 460 to 463 and 466.

Question No.455

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

With regard to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons on February 23, 2021, that “A registry of foreign agents is something that we are actively considering”: (a) what is the timeline for when a decision on such a registry will be made, including the timeline for the implementation of such a registry; (b) when did the government begin considering a foreign agent registry; (c) who has been assigned to lead the government’s consideration of a foreign agent registry, and when did that person receive the assignment; (d) what other changes have been implemented since January 1, 2016, to address the threat of foreign influence; and (e) what other specific actions does the government plan to implement to address the threat of foreign influence, and what is the timeline for the implementation of each such measure?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.

In response to (a), the Government of Canada does not tolerate harmful activities such as foreign interference and applies a whole-of-government approach to safeguarding our communities, democratic institutions, and economic prosperity.

In December, Minister Blair publicly outlined the threats related to foreign interference and the critical work of the security and intelligence community in a letter addressed to all members of Parliament. The Government of Canada is always evaluating the tools and authorities required by our security agencies to keep Canadians safe, while respecting their fundamental rights.

In response to (b), the Government of Canada is always looking to learn from the experiences of our international partners to see what may be advisable or possible in Canada.

In response to (c), the Government of Canada takes a whole-of-government approach to combatting foreign interference. As part of this effort, the Government of Canada is always evaluating the tools and authorities that our national security agencies need to help keep Canadians safe. This involves officials across multiple departments and agencies.

In response to (d), Canada has been leading the G7 rapid response mechanism aimed at identifying and responding to foreign threats to democracy since it was agreed at the 2018 Charlevoix summit. Since its establishment, the mechanism has focused on countering foreign state-sponsored disinformation, in recognition of the critical threat this issue poses to the rules-based international order and democratic governance. The mechanism’s coordination unit, located at Global Affairs Canada, also supports whole-of-government efforts aimed at safeguarding the Canadian federal elections, as a member of the security and intelligence threats to elections, SITE, task force, along with the Communications Security Establishment, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

There has been an increase in foreign interference, FI, investigations at the RCMP over the last few years, which could be attributed to several factors, including increased reporting by victims, greater awareness by local police, and media attention.

It is predominantly the RCMP’s federal policing national security program that looks to identify common activities that could be attributed to FI, including intimidation, harassment and threats. This work requires collaboration with police of local jurisdiction and other local partners, as these types of criminality are almost always brought to their attention first. Should there be criminal or illegal activities occurring in Canada that are found to be backed by a foreign state, the federal policing national security program will take the lead in these types of investigations, given the complexity and the classification of information that form their basis. As such, the RCMP can only confirm that it is monitoring and actively investigating threats of FI in Canada.

The RCMP has a broad, multi-faceted mandate that allows it to investigate and disrupt FI by drawing upon various legislative statutes with a view to laying charges under the Criminal Code of Canada. The RCMP also works closely with its security and intelligence partners to identify and protect those who may be experiencing harassment or intimidation, which may be at the direction of a foreign state. Furthermore, the RCMP works with police of local jurisdiction and other local enforcement to ensure that instances of harassment and intimidation, which are commonly reported at the local level, with potential links to national security are considered by the RCMP’s federal policing national security program for investigation.

In response to (e), the Government of Canada’s security and intelligence community is combatting foreign interference threats within their respective mandates. The Government of Canada continues to look for new and innovative ways to enhance the measures in place to address foreign interference.

Question No.456

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) actions concerning the Panama Papers case and the Paradise Papers case, broken down by each case: (a) how many taxpayer or Canadian business files are currently open with the CRA; (b) how many taxpayer or Canadian business files have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (c) what is the number of employees assigned to each case, broken down by job post title; (d) how many audits have been conducted since each case was disclosed; (e) how many notices of assessment have been issued by the CRA; (f) what is the total amount recovered so far by the CRA; (g) what is the average time to close a case; (h) what is the average return for closed cases; and (i) how many have been settled and what was the loss in amounts recovered?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the CRA.

In response to part (a), as of December 25, 2020, the most recent data available, the CRA defines “files” as audits, and there are 160 taxpayers audits currently ongoing related to the Panama papers and close to 50 audits currently ongoing related to the paradise papers.

In response to part (b), as of March 31, 2020, the most recent data available, no cases related to the Panama papers or the paradise papers have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, PPSC.

Criminal investigations can be complex and require years to complete. The length of time required to investigate is dependent on the complexity of the case, the number and sophistication of individuals involved, the availability of information or evidence, the co-operation or lack thereof of witnesses or the accused, and the various legal tools that may need to be employed to gather sufficient evidence to establish a case beyond reasonable doubt.

In response to part (c), the CRA is interpreting the term “employees” as noted in the question as the budgeted full-time equivalents, FTEs, in the auditors, AU, category: 37 auditors are assigned to the Panama papers workloads, and 14 auditors are assigned to the paradise papers workloads. It is important to note that these auditors are not solely dedicated to Panama papers and paradise papers, and some auditors work on both the Panama papers and the paradise papers workloads.

In response to part (d), as of December 25, 2020, the most recent data available, the CRA has completed close to 200 taxpayer audits linked to the Panama papers and close to 80 taxpayer audits linked to the paradise papers.

In response to part (e), as of December 25, 2020, the most recent data available, there have been over 35 audits resulting in reassessment for the Panama papers and under five for the paradise papers that resulted in tax earned by audit, TEBA.

It is important to note that with each individual audit, there may be multiple notices of reassessment issued to each taxpayer depending on the number of years audited and whether penalties are applicable to the audit. For example, if there are six years under audit, there can be potential for several notices of reassessment issued for the one taxpayer audit should non-compliance be identified.

In response to part (f), the CRA is unable to respond in the manner requested, as it does not track payments against specific account adjustments like audits, as its systems apply payments to a taxpayer’s cumulative outstanding balance by tax year, which can represent multiple assessments, reassessments such as audits of different types, and other adjustments.

However, based on an October 2020 study by the Parliamentary Budget Officer of recent federal budget investments in the CRA tax compliance operations, it was generally estimated that approximately 80% of total audit fiscal impact will materialize and result in successful collection actions.

In response to part (g), the CRA is defining “case” as an audit. Please note that there are many factors that could impact the amount of time to complete a Panama papers and paradise papers audit, such as the time from the date the case is created to the date the case is assigned to an auditor; delays beyond our control such as the time it takes the taxpayer to respond to questions; cases involving offshore assets require exchange of information with other jurisdictions, other tax administrations, which can take a significant time. The average time to complete a Panama papers audit is close to 380 days per audit and close to 360 days per audit for paradise papers.

In response to part (h), as outlined in part (d), there have been close to 280 taxpayers audits completed linked to the Panama papers and paradise papers, resulting in more than $21 million in federal taxes and penalties assessed. The average return, TEBA, for closed audits for the Panama papers is $110,216.

However, as noted under part (e), to date, there have been fewer than five taxpayer audits with links to the paradise papers that resulted in non-compliance. Under the confidentiality provisions of the acts administered by the CRA, in situations where the sample size is so small that a taxpayer or business could be directly or indirectly identified, aggregate data is not released. Therefore, disclosing dollar values related to paradise papers cannot be provided as the identities of the taxpayers or businesses could be revealed or inferred.

In response to part (i), under the confidentiality provisions of the acts administered by the CRA, in situations where the sample size is so small that a recipient could be directly or indirectly identified, aggregate data is not released. Given the small volume of cases and the need to ensure confidentiality, the details cannot be provided as the identities of the taxpayers or businesses could be revealed or inferred.

Question No.457

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

With regard to the announcement by the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry on February 19, 2018, related to a federal contribution of $2,066,407 to have Bell install broadband Internet in Lac Pemichangan and certain other Outaouais communities: (a) did the government chose which communities would be covered or did Bell; (b) what specific criteria was used to determine which communities would be covered by the announced funding; (c) on what date did (i) the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, (ii) the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science, and Industry, become aware that the Chief Executive Officer of Bell had a vacation property in Lac Pemichangan; and (d) why was the funding not used to expand broadband service in Chelsea or other more populated areas of the Outaouais?

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a) connectivity has never been more important, and we continue to make progress in ensuring all Canadians have access to reliable high-speed Internet, no matter where they live. Since 2015, we have approved programs and projects that will connect 1.7 million Canadian households. Our government has introduced programs like connect to innovate, or CTI, and the universal broadband fund that are working to improve Internet connectivity, because we understand that all Canadians need access to high-speed Internet to live, work and compete in today’s digital world.

Through CTI, we are helping more than 900 rural and remote communities, more than triple the 300 communities initially targeted and including 190 indigenous communities, get access to high-speed broadband. This project was chosen under the CTI program. CTI focused on building transformative high-capacity backbone connectivity to connect public institutions like schools, hospitals, and first nations band councils.

Applications were accepted between December 2016 and April 2017 for broadband infrastructure projects in areas identified as underserved because they lacked a backbone connection of one gigabit per second, Gbps. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s, ISED’s, national broadband Internet service availability map was used to determine these areas. For this project, ISED selected Bell’s application, in which Bell proposed to provide backbone access to the underserved communities of Grand-Remous, Clément, Lac-Pemichangan, Petit-Poisson-Blanc, Danford Lake, Alcove and Lascelles and did not include the last mile connection to homes.

The communities ultimately covered by this project were decided through contribution agreement negotiations between ISED and Bell. However, Bell had committed to invest its own contribution to build a last mile network to connect homes. As no federal funding contributed to the building of the last mile network, Bell is solely responsible.

In response to (b), eligible communities were identified on the eligibility map on the CTI website. The data for these maps was provided by a number of sources, including Internet service providers, or ISPs, provinces, territories and others to identify where points of presence, PoP, delivering service of at least 1 Gbps are located. For CTI, an eligible rural community was defined as a named place with a population of fewer than 30,000 residents that was two kilometres or more from the nearest 1 Gbps PoP.

All applications to the CTI program were assessed using a three-stage assessment process. First was the eligibility screening to determine if the applicant was eligible for funding. The second was the assessment of essential criteria, which included technological merit and the extent to which the application demonstrated a feasible project management plan. The sustainability of the proposed solution, including whether the applicant had a reasonable plan and the financial potential to maintain the infrastructure and services on an ongoing basis for five years after the project is completed, was also considered at this stage. Finally, those applications that met the essential criteria underwent an assessment against a series of comparative criteria in the categories of community benefits and partners and costs. Taken together, the program must ensure that projects provide a good regional distribution, allow the program to reach a sufficient number of communities, and do not exceed available resources. This project went through each of the steps outlined above.

In response to (c), the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and the parliamentary secretary became aware of this via media reports in February 2021.

In response to (d), projects were selected from applications received for the underserved communities identified on ISED’s eligibility maps.

Question No.458

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With regard to offshore tax havens, since November 2015: (a) how many taxpayer or Canadian business files are currently open with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA); (b) how many taxpayer or Canadian business files have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (c) what is the number of employees assigned to each case, broken down by job post title; (d) how many audits have been conducted since each case was disclosed; (e) how many notices of assessment have been issued by the CRA; (f) what is the total amount recovered so far by the CRA; (g) what is the average time to close a case; (h) what is the average return for closed cases; and (i) how many have been settled and what was the loss in amounts recovered?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the CRA. In response to parts (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), while the CRA may use the term "tax havens" for illustrative purposes to communicate with a broader audience, in practice the CRA’s risk assessments focus on jurisdictions of concern. There are generally two essential attributes that are used to identify offshore jurisdictions of concern: no taxes or low effective rates of tax; and banking secrecy or confidentiality laws providing anonymity.

The CRA does not capture all the audit activity completed involving all jurisdictions of concern information in the manner requested above. The CRA does not specifically maintain an official list of offshore jurisdictions of concern. Through collaborative efforts with international partners, the CRA is able to identify and take action against those who are evading and avoiding paying their fair share of tax. Furthermore, where tax treaties or tax information exchange agreements are in place, sharing of information amongst tax authorities can also be used to help identify and address non-compliance.

In response to part (b), between April 1, 2015, and March 31, 2020, the latest data available, 16 cases with an international component, regarding 19 taxpayers, were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, PPSC. As with any criminal investigation undertaken by law enforcement bodies, including the CRA, these cases can be complex and require years to complete. The amount of time required to investigate is dependent on the complexity of the case, the number of individuals involved, whether international requests for information will be needed, the availability of information or evidence, the co-operation or lack thereof of witnesses or the accused, and the various legal tools that may need to be employed to gather sufficient evidence to establish a case beyond reasonable doubt.

In response to parts (h) to (i), between April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2020, the latest data available, there were seven cases with an international component, regarding nine taxpayers, that resulted in convictions. This involved $2,639,269 in federal tax evaded and court fines totaling $1,501,097 and 24 years in jail. The average return for convictions was $377,038.42 per case.

Question No.460

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

With regard to youth policy and the launch of the national conversation that sought to develop a new Canadian youth policy and that involved over 10,000 individual responses and 68 submissions from youth-led discussions and youth-serving organizations: (a) where did these 10,000 individual responses and 68 briefs come from, broken down by (i) the official language in which the responses and briefs were submitted, (ii) the home province of these participants; (b) during the consultations, did the government pay close attention to the needs of francophones, including francophones in minority communities, as well as those in rural areas; and (c) what was the total cost of the Canada Youth Summit, that took place on May 2 and 3, 2019?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a)(i), out of the 10,000 individual responses from youth-led discussions, 12% of respondents provided responses to the “Have Your Say” booklet in French; 88% of respondents provided responses to the “Have Your Say” booklet in English; there were 68 submissions from youth-led round tables and stakeholder discussions, youth-serving organizations, and participants and stakeholders were offered the opportunity to respond in the official language of their choice.

The response to (a)(ii) is Ontario 47%, Quebec 13%, British Columbia 12%, Alberta 9%, Manitoba 6%, Nova Scotia 5%, Saskatchewan 2%, New Brunswick 2%, Newfoundland and Labrador 1%, Northwest Territories 1%, Prince Edward Island 1%, Nunavut less than 1%, Yukon less than 1%.

In response to (b), during the consultations, the government listened to the needs of all youth, including francophones from official-language minority communities. Participants were offered the opportunity to respond in the official language of their choice. The summit also provided simultaneous translation and interpretation services.

Various youth-serving organizations were included in the consultation process, for example Indspire, Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française, Oxfam-Québec, RDÉE, leader in the economic development of the francophone and Acadian communities, Regroupement des jeunes chambres du commerce du Québec, YMCA Montréal.

The consultation was designed to gather feedback from young Canadians, including indigenous youth, youth from different income groups, youth living in rural and remote areas, newcomers, vulnerable youth facing social and economical barriers, and youth from diverse backgrounds and communities.

Seventy-seven per cent of respondents indicated that they live in an urban community; 20% of respondents indicated that they live in a rural community; 3% of respondents indicated that they live in a remote community.

The response to (c) is $86,000.

Question No.461

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

With regard to the motion adopted by the House of Commons on June 19, 2019, calling on the United Nations to establish an international independent investigation into allegations of genocide against Tamils committed in Sri Lanka: (a) does the government support calls for an international investigation into allegations of genocide; (b) has the government made any official statements or representations to other states, multilateral bodies, or other international entities respecting a possible independent investigation, and, if so, what are the specific details, including (i) who made the representation, (ii) the date, (iii) the summary of the contents, (iv) the form of representation (official statement, phone call, etc.), (v) the name of the state, body or entity the representation was made to, (vi) the title of individuals whom the representation was made to; and (c) does the government intend to raise this issue or any other issues related to human rights in Sri Lanka during upcoming United Nations Human Rights Council sessions?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.

Canada has long supported calls for credible truth-seeking, accountability and justice in Sri Lanka.

In 2014, Canada supported the UN Human Rights Council’s, UNHRC, mandated investigation by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, OHCHR, into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes in Sri Lanka, OISL. In 2015, Canada supported UNHRC resolution 30/1, co-sponsored by Sri Lanka, which affirmed that a credible justice process should include independent judicial and prosecutorial institutions and the participation of Commonwealth and other foreign judges. Canada also supported resolutions 34/1, 2017, and 40/1, 2019, which rolled over the commitments agreed to by the Government of Sri Lanka in 2015, while calling for their timely implementation.

When the Government of Sri Lanka withdrew its support from the above resolutions in February 2020, Canada, along with its core group partners on the resolution, led efforts to bring a new resolution to the 46th session of the UNHRC, February-March 2021. This was done in recognition that previous domestic processes have proven insufficient to tackle impunity and deliver real reconciliation, and that the international community’s continued scrutiny of Sri Lanka at the UNHRC constitutes a key step for advancing accountability.

The new resolution 46/1, adopted on March 23 strengthens the capacity of the OHCHR to collect and preserve information and evidence of crimes related to Sri Lanka’s civil war that ended in 2009. It also requests the OHCHR to enhance its monitoring and reporting on the situation of human rights in Sri Lanka, including the preparation of a comprehensive report with further options for advancing accountability to be presented at the Human Rights Council 51st session, September 2022. Canada and the international community will consider these options for future accountability processes, which may include an international investigation, when the OHCHR presents its comprehensive report.

Canada played a key role in building support for the adoption of this resolution during the council session. This included the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ statement during the high-level segment on February 24, during which he shared Canada’s concern over warning signs of a deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka, recognized the lack of progress in achieving accountability and reconciliation, acknowledged the frustration of victims, and reiterated Canada’s belief that the council has a responsibility to continue to closely monitor and engage on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka.

On February 25, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs delivered Canada’s statement on the OHCHR report on Sri Lanka. He echoed concerns about Sri Lanka’s commitment to a domestic reconciliation process and he asked council members whether Sri Lanka’s newly announced commission of inquiry could achieve justice for victims of the conflict, given it lacks a comprehensive mandate, independence and inclusivity.

Canada, alongside core group partners, also conducted advocacy and outreach to council members to build support for the resolution in the weeks leading up to the vote. These coordinated advocacy efforts were critical to the resolution’s successful adoption.

Canada will continue to urge Sri Lanka to uphold its human rights obligations, end impunity and undertake a comprehensive accountability process for all violations and abuses of human rights. Resolution 46/1 is a step toward securing a safe, peaceful and inclusive future for Sri Lanka, and, to this end, Canada stands ready to support efforts that work towards this goal.