Is Canada at Risk of Being Complicit in China’s Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity?

By Rukiye Turdush

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s close relationship with China risks undermining Canada’s moral and legal leadership on international human rights. This concern is especially acute given Canada’s prior leadership in condemning China’s crimes against humanity and acts of genocide against the Uyghur population in East Turkistan.

Multilateral approach to human rights pressure remains essential and is more effective than relying on bilateral engagement alone, as Canada’s leadership has shown to date. However, deepening bilateral trade and investment ties while disregarding China’s genocide and crimes against humanity will undermine the effectiveness of this approach. Under international law, economic engagement of this kind, especially when it is connected to forced labour and global supply chains, can give rise to state responsibility and heighten the risk of complicity in genocide.

On February 22, 2021, the House of Commons of Canada (the elected lower chamber of Parliament) unanimously passed a non-binding motion stating that China’s treatment of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in East Turkistan (Xinjiang) constitutes genocide. Several European states parliament also passed motions declared that China was committing genocide against the Uyghurs. Even though, Canada’s parliamentary action is not legal determination and not binding, complicity does not require a final judicial determination of genocide at the time the assistance is given that cause risk of complicity in genocide or crime against humanity and this statement was repeatedly held by international tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

It is sufficient of being complicit that a State acts with “knowledge of the wrongful act” according to International Law Commissions Article 16 on State Responsibility, in this case Uyghur forced labour, when it provides support and facilitating China’s wrongful act; it does not need to share the specific intent to commit genocide.

Moreover, non-binding parliamentary action does not mean totally irrelevant, because they establish based on Canadian government’s knowledge. The Elements of Crimes produced by Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 2002 and adopted by 2010 stated that existence of intent and knowledge can be inferred from relevant facts and circumstances. Canadian government’s knowledge in China’s genocide and crime against humanity against the Uyghurs have been inferred from parliamentary findings and official NGO reports based on the evidences and circumstances.

In October 2020, the Canadian Parliament’s Subcommittee on International Human Rights report concluded that the actions of the Chinese Communist Party against the Uyghur population constitute genocide and 2021 House of Commons motion follow suit. Canada later also led 51 states to condemn China’s atrocities against the Uyghurs. So, Canada has awareness of China’s widespread and systematic crime against humanity and genocide against the Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in the region.

The prohibition of genocide and crimes against humanity is a peremptory norm (jus cogens) of international law, giving rise to obligations erga omnes. States are not only prohibited from committing such acts but are also required to prevent them and to refrain from aiding or assisting in their commission. Article III(e) of the Genocide Convention and Article 16 of the ILC’s Articles on State Responsibility establish that a state may incur responsibility where it knowingly facilitates or supports internationally wrongful acts. In the trade context, this obligation extends to preventing economic activity that sustains or benefits systems of mass atrocity.

These risks are particularly pronounced in relation to forced labor embedded in global supply chains. Extensive documentation indicates the widespread use of Uyghur forced labor in China’s colonized East Turkistan across sectors central to electric vehicle (EV) production, including mining, battery manufacturing, aluminum production, and automotive assembly.

Canada prohibits Importing goods made with forced labour and Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (2023) applies broadly, not specifically targeted at Chinese EVs. However, governments 2024 Fall economic statement indicated intention to introduce new mandatory supply chain due diligence regime. It is difficult to predict that this additional new legislation will be introduced soon or not since Canada is eager to import Chinese EVs after Carney’s visit to Beijing. Besides, even if based on the strong public demand of Canadian domestic job creation and not to hurt Canadian auto industry, Canada invite Chinese investment for EV assembly production in Canada, it still cannot ensure not to put Canadian consumers at risk of buying Chinese EVs tainted by Uyghur forced labour.

Comparative practice among Canada’s allies highlights the growing recognition of these legal risks. In the United States, theUyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act (UFLPA) establishes a rebuttable presumption that goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in East Turkistan (Xinjiang) are made with forced labour are prohibited from importation. The UFLPA has been actively enforced, including against products linked to solar energy, automotive components, and battery supply chains that sectors directly relevant to EV manufacturing. Similarly, the European Union has adopted an regulatory framework to address forced labour and transnational business companies complicity. The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) requires these companies to identify, prevent, mitigate, and remedy human rights victims throughout their global supply chains. In parallel, the EU has approved a Forced Labour Regulation that will ban products made with forced labor from the EU market, regardless of origin. These regulations reflect a growing awareness that economic relations without strict due diligence may expose states and corporations to risk of legal and reputational consequences.

Without clear specifically targeted forced-labour prevention regulations at Chinese EVs would place Canada out of step with its closest allies. It would also risk undermining the effectiveness of allied trade restrictions. This may frustrate the purpose of collective accountability mechanisms and weaken the international legal response to mass atrocity crimes. Canada’s previous actions that criticized China’s crime against humanity and genocide positioned Canada as a leading advocate for accountability and the enforcement of international legal norms. However, shifting unexpectedly close trade relations with China after prime minister Mark Carney’s visit to Beijing, especially through tariff reductions on Chinese EVs that linked to Uyghur forced labour would not only diminish Canada’s moral authority but also expose it to legal inconsistency and increases risks of complicity. To remain aligned with allies and friends in international norms and its own legal commitments, Canada must ensure that its trade policies with stringent due diligence, do not facilitate or legitimize economic activity connected to genocide or crimes against humanity.