Senator Gold, the November 15 edition of The Globe and Mail reported that the Canadian government had intercepted a shipment of clothing from China for the first time since the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, was signed 15 months ago. There were suspicions that the shipment contained goods produced using forced labour. Canadian authorities did not disclose the date of the seizure or the company that was importing the goods. Meanwhile, U.S. authorities have made several seizures and published the dates and names of the companies involved. Why the difference between the two countries? One factor is that in order to stop a shipment, the U.S. requires information that reasonably, but not conclusively, indicates the presence of forced labour, while Canada requires legally sufficient and defensible evidence. This high standard of proof makes intervention very difficult. We even run the risk of becoming a top destination for these suspicious shipments.

Why does Canada have a standard of proof that makes it almost impossible to seize goods produced by forced labour?

Thank you. I would like a written response, if possible. In the meantime, we still have a choice about the standard of proof, since, as it now stands, Canadian authorities basically have to prove the existence of forced labour abroad. For example, they have to prove that a shipment of cotton clothing or tomatoes from Xinjiang, where Uighurs live, actually contains goods produced by forced labour. The problem is that no consultants or journalists can conduct an investigation because the Chinese government will not grant them access to that province. How can Canada hope to stop the importation of goods produced by modern slavery if we’ve set standards that are impossible to meet?