It's the correct word if Canada is to apply the definition on others that it applies upon itself.
Paywalled for me. Can you give us the gist of it?
TLDR: The Economist tries to argue that without death camps there is no genocide; which is false.
It's slightly more nuanced, arguing that referring to such scenarios as genocide lessens the impact of the term for the more murderous forms of genocide.
I don't agree with that viewpoint at all. Both forms are vehemently barbarous, and the world has enough problems with genocide denialism that engaging in technical arguments over the definition is only going to give more cover to denialists.