Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue No. 66 - Evidence - Meeting of June 6, 2019
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 6, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 10:34 a.m. to study foreign relations and international trade generally (topic: update on the human rights situation in Tibet).
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is meeting today to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to foreign relations and international trade generally. As part of this mandate, we will have three guests to give us some information about Tibet and the human rights situation currently in Tibet.
Before that, I would ask the senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey from Manitoba.
Senator Dean: Tony Dean from Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle from Nova Scotia.
Senator Ngo: Thanh Hai Ngo from Ontario.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson from Nunavut.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: I’m Raynell Andreychuk from Saskatchewan.
Welcome to the committee. We have before us Dr. Sangay, whose remarks we will hear. We have everyone’s biography before us so that we do not take away the precious time we have here and having a dialogue with you.
Dr. Sangay, you’ve been here before in the Senate. I welcome you on behalf of the committee. The floor is yours to make your opening remarks.
Lobsang Sangay, President, Central Tibetan Administration: Thank you, chairperson Andreychuk and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. It’s a great honour and privilege to be here. First, let me take 30 seconds to say a few words in Tibetan.
[Editor’s note: Mr. Sangay spoke in Tibetan.]
I just expressed solidarity with Tibetans in Tibet, that there’s a formal hearing on Tibet, because this year marks the sixtieth anniversary of national uprising day in Tibet. In March 1959, thousands of Tibetans rose up in Tibet to claim that Tibet belongs to Tibetans, and Tibet should not be occupied. After that, even as per the Chinese government’s official documents, it was established that between the month of March and September of 1959, 87,000 Tibetans were killed. There’s another estimation from different sources that approximately 1 million Tibetans have perished under different circumstances since the occupation of Tibet.
This year also marks the thirtieth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square tragedy. Many brave Chinese advocated for, died and were killed for democracy in China. June 4, two days ago, marks the thirtieth anniversary. We all know that more than 1 million Muslim Uyghers are in detention in Qinghai area as well. I want to express my solidarity to them.
I would like to acknowledge Senator Ngo for proposing a resolution on Tibet where the investigation of human rights in Tibet is considered very important. For the first time, a proposal for dialogue with the Chinese government is proposed. This is a formal resolution. The Middle Way Approach is our policy, which is to say that historically Tibet was an independent country. There’s no dispute. Even Chinese historians acknowledge and accept that. But what we say is that the middle way is a viable option. We are trying to find a middle ground where the Chinese government says the sovereignty of China, territorial integrity and the One-China policy cannot be compromised. To that His Holiness the Dalai Lama responded by saying: Okay, we could accept all this, provided repression of Tibetans in Tibet end genuine autonomy is granted to Tibetans in Tibet. That’s the middle ground.
We will not seek separation from China. We will seek autonomy within the framework of the Chinese constitution. That is the proposal. This is a win-win proposal for the Chinese government, for China and the Tibetan people. To have a resolution mentioning the Middle Way Approach, I think, is laudable. I want to acknowledge that.
Also, what we seek is preservation of our identity, religion, culture, and language is very important. While we do that, what we want to see is pursuit of our dignity, human rights, democracy and other things. Canada has been a leader in advocating for democracy and human rights. It is very important that Canada shows leadership on human rights in Tibet as well.
What we would like to see through this hearing from the Canadian government is a consistent and principled stand on human rights and democracy. With that, I would like to once again thank all the senators who are here and for holding this formal hearing on Tibet. Thank you. Because I was told I would have only five or six minutes. I think I finished within my five or six minutes.
The Chair: All right. Thank you for the time frame that you worked within. You made your main points.
I have a long list of questioners already. I’ll start with Senator Massicotte.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for being with us this morning. It’s much appreciated.
I’m sure when you describe how you saw your relationship with China, you must have specifically thought about what kind of structure? Is it a federation you’re seeking? How do you obtain autonomy and at the same time respect the One-China policy? Is it a bit like Taiwan? Could you describe a bit more how you see that?
Mr. Sangay: There are many examples of autonomy, including in Canada. Quebec, the First Nations of Nunavut, South Tyrol in Italy or Hong Kong or Taiwan. We can always look at similarities, but there are also vast differences. It’s always challenging to compare.
What we seek is less than Hong Kong, if you go by specifics. If you look at the document Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy, it has 11 listed points we want, which are more or less consistent with the provisions of the Chinese constitution. Hence what we seek is genuine autonomy within the framework of the Chinese constitution.
We can look at Aceh in Indonesia, Northern Ireland, Scotland, there are many examples around the world, and there are similarities but also differences. What we seek is within the framework of the Chinese constitution.
This came about, as I explained, the Chinese government insists that sovereignty and territorial integrity in China cannot be compromised. One China cannot be compromised. Hence His Holiness Dalai Lama envisioned a Middle Way Approach which was unanimously passed by the Tibetan Parliament to say genuine autonomy within the framework of the Chinese constitution.
Senator Massicotte: How has the Chinese government responded to your principles?
Mr. Sangay: That’s a bit tricky. What they say is there is a hidden agenda for independence. Ultimately what they suspect is that we want something beyond what we’re seeking. Deficit of trust is a problem no matter what we say, even if we say it within the framework of the Chinese constitution. You have a constitution, passed in 1984, and these are the provisions listed. The minority national act of China says this. For our 11 provisions, there are five chapters. All are more or less consistent with the Chinese constitution. That’s what we propose.
They say there is hidden agenda behind it. It’s a trust deficit. Sometimes when I talk to Chinese officials and scholars, often if I say even if His Holiness goes to high mountains and live in a cave and he goes on a retreat for three years, you will still suspect he’s doing something. Or if he goes deep down in the ocean and keeps away from the wolf. If he says in three years or three months there’s a retreat, a famous retreat in Buddhism, you still suspect he’s doing something. It’s the trust deficit. Again, your point is right. You are willing to give or acknowledge One-China interpretation when it comes to Hong Kong. You have already granted autonomy to Hong Kong on the basis of basic law and the one country system. And Macau. When we Tibetans say, “Why can’t we have autonomy similar to but less than Hong Kong or Taiwan?” you say we have a hidden agenda. It’s a trust deficit. That’s what the Chinese government says.
Senator Ngo: I want to follow up. You say the Middle Way Approach is so important in achieving this. Could you elaborate more what concrete steps are required to renew the Sino-Tibetan dialogue in order to achieve this?
Mr. Sangay: We propose a dialogue between envoys of the Dalai Lama and representatives of the Chinese government. This has taken place before. From 2002 to 2010, envoys of the Dalai Lama met with Chinese counterparts formally nine times, and they have had discussions, but there was no breakthrough. We propose that envoys with the Dalai Lama meet with — or rather the Chinese representatives meet with envoys of the Dalai Lama through this dialogue to discuss the Middle Way Approach and try to find a solution on the Tibet issue.
Senator Ngo: Right now, you have the problem because Chinese government does not recognize the Dalai Lama appointment of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the official representative of Panchen Lama. What do you think about that? What difficulty do you have in order to have the dialogue with the Chinese?
Mr. Sangay: There is difficulty, but also as I said, Canada should have consistent and principled standards of human rights. The Chinese government also should have a consistent and principled stand on dialogue. With the U.S. trade war, what they say is through dialogue we must solve this issue. Let’s have dialogue. When we Tibetans say let’s have dialogue to solve the issue on human rights, they so far don’t want to have a dialogue. They don’t show this consistency when it comes to dialogue.
You’re right; Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, Panchen Lama was recognized or rather endorsed by His Holiness the Dalai Lama as the genuine reincarnation of the Panchen Lama. At the age of five, he disappeared. He’s 30 years old. We don’t know where he lives. It’s been 25 years since he disappeared. You’re right; the Chinese government has not been consistent. This is a spiritual matter. His Holiness has a right to endorse the Panchen Lama but the Chinese government has made him disappear, and some say even abducted.
Senator Coyle: Thank you for being with us, Mr. Sangay. I’m very sympathetic. I think we all are as Canadians to what you’re expressing here today.
I’m curious. First of all, you’re talking about autonomy for Tibetans within Tibet within the framework of the Chinese constitution, the importance of the Tibetan culture, religion, language. You also talk about dignity, human rights and democracy.
Could you first describe how Tibet, in that old but new situation of autonomy, would function as a democracy? Then I have one follow-up.
Mr. Sangay: Technically, once you seek genuine autonomy within the framework of the Chinese constitution, the democracy is constrained because you have to function within the framework of the Chinese constitution. Given a choice, we would like to have full-fledged democracy because the Tibetan administration that I’m the political head of functions on the basis of democracy. We have had our parliament elected since 1960. My position is also directly elected by Tibetans all over the world, in 40 countries, including Tibetans in Canada. As is this robust, transparent, vibrant democracy. Given the choice, that is what we prefer and that is what we already practise.
In fact, I would go a little further and say our parliamentary session is more robust than many of the countries in the world. I would not name Canada. Just a few months ago, we had this parliamentary session and I had to face 250 questions for two and a half days. I had to give answers right then and there. I doubt there will be any parliament where the president of the administration will face Parliament and answer questions for two and a half days, I mean finished questions. If they had more questions, I would be answering to them for three or four or five days, no matter how long it takes. Our democracy system is robust. We have a judiciary too which tries civil cases. Our Auditor General is very powerful and we have an Election Commission. I think with three branches of democracy and other independent commission, it’s a functioning, vibrant democracy.
Senator Coyle: How would you reconcile that functioning, vibrant democracy that you have described with the obvious ambition to re-embed and also create an autonomous situation for those Tibetans in Tibet but also the Tibetans outside of Tibet? How would you reconcile that in the framework we’re discussing?
Mr. Sangay: That’s why I said, given a choice we prefer the exile Tibetan democratic system. Our priority, and rightly so, should be 6 million Tibetans in Tibet. For 6 million Tibetans in Tibet, our priority is to alleviate their sufferings and human rights violations and give them a situation or circumstance better than what they have now. Our preference is genuine autonomy where they can have their own administration, they can practice their own language, culture and religion. They can preserve their identity. That’s under threat and that’s the number one priority. Exiled Tibetans are 150,000, so we are just 5 per cent of the population or 2.5 per cent. Our priority is 90-plus per cent of Tibetans in Tibet. That’s why we’re functioning on genuine autonomy within the framework of the Chinese constitution.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you very much for being here today. You are helping us have a fuller, better understanding. On that note, my question is about countering the misinformation about Tibet circulating in a number of countries, including Canada. In recent months, some pro-Beijing groups have made —
[English]
Are you okay with the translation? I’m a francophone, but I’ll try to ask in English.
My question is with regard to the disinformation about Tibet. This disinformation, at least for the last few months, came from a few pro-Beijing groups that made headlines for having tried to intimidate Chinese citizens, especially Tibetans, in the Canadian territory.
Last April, the pro-Beijing group Tibetan Association of Canada was suspected for having circulated false letters pretending these letters were coming from the Prime Minister, as well as the immigration minister. This organization is notably suspected of following instructions directly from the Chinese authorities.
Do you believe that, first, we can fear an increase of this type of action, of disinformation in Canada? Do you have any suggestions for us in order to counter these disinformation attempts?
Mr. Sangay: That’s a very important question. The registration of Tibetan Association of Canada and with the fake endorsement from the PMO is a serious matter, mainly because we have Tibetans in Ontario and all over Canada. They are the genuine representatives of the Tibetan people. This Tibetan Association, so-called, does not represent 99 per cent of Tibetans in Canada. It’s misleading. What they did is fraudulent.
I think we should be very vigilant about it because they’ve attempted to do so in the U.S. and they have tried in Australia. These people represent a French fundamentalist kind of group which we believe is used by the Chinese government for their own political purpose. Hence, we should be very careful and vigilant. For the fraud they have committed and whatever legal recourse needs to be taken, should be taken. I think it’s just the beginning. Registration is one thing, and then activities will follow. We should be very careful about that.
Senator Saint-Germain: Would you be aware of other such associations that are active in Canada?
Mr. Sangay: Informally, I’m sure there are some. This is the first attempt to have a formal registration. They did so also in the U.S. They don’t represent 99 per cent of Tibetans — of that we can be absolutely certain. We have a few Tibetans in Ottawa and Tibetan Association members are here. They get together, they elect their executives in Toronto, Calgary, in Vancouver. We elect the representatives through the democratic process. They just come and register and claim to represent Tibetans in Canada, which they absolutely do not represent.
Senator Bovey: I want to thank you, sir, for being with us today. As one who has followed this recent history very closely, having invited and received the Dalai Lama in British Columbia, gosh, about 20 years ago or more, I know that you’re seeking, as you say, the middle ground regarding culture and language. I wonder if you can talk more, please, about religion and where that is in your discussions or concerns now. As I said, I have had the privilege to work with many of the Dalai Lama’s monks, both from India and those in Canada, over many years.
Mr. Sangay: We are very proud that His Solemnness the Dalai Lama was received by Canada on various occasions. He still is an honorary citizen of Canada. We are very proud of that. Thank you very much for receiving him and in helping Tibetan monks.
As far as religion is concerned, it’s vital. Tibetan civilization is based on Buddhist principles and values. Hence, the Communist Party of China knew that when they invaded Tibet. The first thing they did was destroy 98 per cent of Tibetan monasteries and nunneries; 99.9 per cent of monks and nuns were disrobed. Religion as we knew it just physically disappeared from the world. The good news is after 60 years Buddhism is back in Tibet in social and private space. What is happening in Tibet, Tibetans are doing on their own.
As far as the Chinese government is concerned, they want to systematically destroy, dilute Tibetan Buddhism, make Tibet into a Chinatown, Tibetan into Chinese. There are lots of restrictions on religious practices in Tibet, but Buddhism is back. The assertion of Tibetan identity is back in social and private space. What it shows is that on the spiritual front, after 60 years, we have prevailed or, rather, we are prevailing. From 98 per cent of destruction with only 2 per cent chance of success, we took that as a Buddhist with resilience on our side and a rugged spirit of mountain people, we fought and we have preserved Tibetan Buddhism. We are very proud. But the policy remains. Consistently you read about Serta and Larung Gar Monastery being destroyed. From 20,000 monks and nuns, it is being demolished, reduced to half. And Yarchen Gar with 5,000 nuns is being demolished as we speak.
All this is taking place despite all the challenges. Preservation of Buddhism is very important for us.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for being here this morning. My question was also about religion, which Senator Bovey asked.
I would like to take it further and say that when we look at Tibet, when we look at the Uyghurs who are in internment camps, there are stories coming out. This last month was Ramadan where they were forced to eat and they couldn’t fast. Religion seems to play a big part where China refuses to have a dialogue or keeping the Uyghurs in camps and saying they are reprogramming them.
But you have prevailed. Tibetans have prevailed. From someone who is from that part of the world, from the subcontinent, we grew up listening to the stories, we heard about the monasteries, the wealth of information, the libraries that you have. Tell me, what is life like for an ordinary Tibetan right now? Of all that information, has anything been saved? It’s a very closed off area and very difficult to get to, yet you continue to flourish, to have a voice. Also, are there younger people using social media to get their message out?
Mr. Sangay: Social media is very much restricted in Tibet. We have what we call the Chinese firewall to prevent any information from going inside Tibet. What they have is a policy called 1 and 100, meaning they will export 100 per cent of the information or propaganda to the outside world but they will not let even one 1 per cent of information from the outside world come into Tibet. That’s the policy. It’s very difficult.
You’re right, as you are from a very prominent family in Pakistan. The Uyghurs are under a very difficult situation, they are not allowed to celebrate Ramadan, they are not allowed to name their children after holy saints of the Muslim faith. Even in Tibetan monasteries, if the monastery runs a school to teach the Tibetan language, the monasteries are given notice to shut down those schools and throw out all those Tibetan children below the age of 18 and send them to communist party schools.
Even the private efforts are being restricted. On the one hand, I said that from 2 per cent chances we have succeeded, but I’m saying it’s in context. What they destroyed — physically they destroyed everything. In Tibetan monasteries we have statues made out of gold and silver and different kinds of stones, 75 per cent were burned, melted and have disappeared. What we recovered is only 25 per cent.
Again, I just want to put that in context when you say we have succeeded. I am not saying we have succeeded 100 per cent. A lot of challenges even now with what is going on.
The best example is the Jokhang temple. It is the holy shrine in the Tibetan Buddhist world, it’s like Mecca or the Vatican for us. If you go to the Jokhang temple in Lhasa today, there are sharp shooters on the rooftop and cameras watching over you. Some Tibetans have said there are more cameras following you than the butter lamps that we offer in the temple. There are more guns pointing at you than there are monks who are inside the temple. That’s a saying.
Also, for example, those Tibetans and monks who want to come to India to seek teachings from his Holiness the Dalai Lama, their passports are not only denied, they are taken back. Even those who got passports. There was one Tibetan blogger who said Tibetans have a better chance of going to heaven than going to India to seek teachings from his Holiness the Dalai Lama. Not even 1 per cent of Tibetans are given passports. These are the restrictions imposed on the religions practices of Tibetans.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much, Dr. Sangay, for being with us today.
Your comments are, of course, very compelling. I’m wondering if, over the past few years, your international advocacy has suffered in any way. I ask because we have seen a greater assertiveness by China on the international stage, whether it has been, as has become traditional repercussions for the diplomatic reception of the Dalai Lama in various countries, or on other matters where sometimes trade actions are seen as a reprisal for engaging too much in the Tibetan question, if I can put it that way.
I’m curious as to whether you are finding that the doors are still open when you travel. Obviously the doors are open here in Canada, but at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.
Mr. Sangay: It’s not that common to have a formal hearing on Tibet like we are having. It’s very courageous and honourable on the part of the committee and especially the members who are present here. Just to show up for the hearing means a lot because you are sending a clear message to Beijing, and especially to Tibetans who are suffering in Tibet, that you care for human rights and environmental issues as well.
Although Freedom House has come out with a report for the last three years. In all three years they have listed Tibet as the least free region after Syria. We all know about Syria, but the second least free region in the whole world is Tibet. We want to share that with the rest of the world, but the Chinese government’s presence is everywhere and they are very, very strong.
I was in Lithuania for 36 hours and the Chinese embassy issued a press release condemning my visit. I was in South Africa last year and they issued a press release and they sent 100 people to protest against a talk I was giving at the law school. They stormed the auditorium and the stage and chased away all the students. And last November I was speaking at the University of Toronto, I think 50 or 60 Chinese students just showed up with the Chinese national flag, singing the Chinese national anthem. In fact, I called some of them inside so we could have dialogue after the talk.
I think the tentacles of the Chinese government are everywhere. What is most disturbing is the elite co-optation. When you see minister after minister, I don’t want to say bought, but rather change their service from being a minister of a country to a consultant of the Chinese company or government, that’s very disappointing.
I have had the privilege of going to Australia. Once the talk was about whether the foreign minister of Australia would meet with me. The next time when I reached, he was a consultant for the Chinese government. The trade minister of Australia was paid, I think, $800,000 plus dollars a year and he’s a consultant from a Chinese company. Even a foreign minister of a European country I would not name has become a president of a major international — actually, I’ll name it — the Davos World Economic Forum supported by the Chinese government, it’s governor is a former foreign minister of Norway.
When you see that, it’s very disturbing what the Chinese government is trying to do is restructure the United Nations, redefine human rights so that political and civil rights as we know them, which are inalienable, fundamental and universal, are made secondary to what they call development. As long as the government provides bread, butter and shelter, citizens should keep quiet.
Then you will have no democracy, no freedom of speech. That’s what socialism with Chinese characters means. I think the whole world, the world order, it’s under threat, under stress because they are redefining everything. It’s not only a Tibet issue. Tibet is the litmus test. If you are for democracy and human rights, you have to be for Tibet.
If you don’t speak out for Tibet, then you are not for human rights or democracy. That’s why I applaud the consistency and principled stand of the Canadian government and Canadian leaders.
That needs to continue.
Hence, you’re right; from country to country they are coming under normal stress from the Chinese government.
Having said that, many countries are again pushing back. For example, the Czech Republic has the largest Tibet parliamentary support group in the whole of Europe. We have 51 members of Parliament signed up. And Japan has the largest group in the whole world, 91 members of the Parliament and 60 or 70 per cent from the ruling party are part of the Tibet Parliament support group. We also have in Canada the Canada-Tibet Parliamentary outreach group. Some of the members are here. They are doing a very good job.
One of the unique projects they have is to hire Tibetans as interns. Some of them are sitting at the back here. They come as summer interns and learn about Canadian Parliament or the government process. They share their Tibetan experience and they go back and become leaders in the Tibetan community. This unique project is being now replicated in other parts of the world.
On that front, I think the Canadian Parliamentary support group has done a very good job. I hope you all will join them and make it, perhaps, the biggest in the world.
So that needs to cross 92 members of Parliament. I hope it happens. Jointly with senators and the members of Parliament, it will happen.
The Chair: I am going to turn to our final senator to ask the final question.
Senator Patterson: We’re honoured to have you here, Mr. President.
In wrapping this up, you talked about Canada’s stand on human rights in approving ways.
It’s the job of Senate committees to make recommendations to the Government of Canada. What would you like to see the committee recommend that the federal government, the Government of Canada, should do — that it’s not doing now, perhaps — respecting the human rights situation in Tibet?
Mr. Sangay: I think the honourable senator knows the solution, which is proposed in the Senate. I think it’s a good start. It has all the provisions that are important for Tibet issues. Specifically, I already mentioned about human rights and the Middle Way Approach and dialogue, which are very important.
One provision, it is number D, says it grant Canada reciprocal diplomatic access to Tibet without limitations. This is very important. I think since 2013, the Canadian ambassador or consular general has not visited Tibet. This means access to Tibet is deliberately denied by the Chinese government.
Recently, three weeks ago, the U.S. ambassador to China was allowed to visit Tibet, mainly because last year the U.S. Congress passed a bill called Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act of 2018 and it was signed by President Trump. Now it’s a law which requires that any number of Chinese officials, scholars, journalists, researchers, students and tourists can come to America. But similar access should be given to Americans who want to visit Tibet. If not, the State Department will determine which officials and people should be denied entry to America.
The State Department is in the process of collecting data as to whether the embassies and consul generals are issuing visas to American citizens who want to visit Tibet. If not, then the State Department will take action.
I think similar action should be recommended by the Senate for that reciprocal access. I think it’s just fair. Any number of Chinese can come, and a similar number of Canadians should be allowed to go to Tibet. If not, we will at least take action against those officials who are deliberately denying visas or are punishing or repressing Tibetans in Tibet.
Senator Patterson, I think you have been a leader on this front, from your background and experience. This will send the right message that the Chinese government cannot act with impunity when it comes to human rights.
We must have a principle stand and say: Just give us equal access. That’s very fair. I think that needs to be done.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Sangay, we have run out of time, as we often do in this committee. We tackle very complex problems in a very short time. We do the best we can. We want to thank you for your very articulate, frank and measured, quiet approach to a very important issue that should be on the minds of Canadians and the world community. We should know the facts and make our own judgments based on that. You’ve added to our dialogue. You’ve added to our reflections and our need to really think more deeply on this topic.
Thank you, Dr. Sangay, on behalf of the committee.
Mr. Sangay: Thank you, Senator Andreychuk and committee members, for this privilege and honour. Given your law background — I’m also from a law background. I think justice is very much needed in Tibet. And I hope you all will work and make it happen sooner than later. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you.
The Chair: We are now turning to our next panellist from Amnesty International, Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada.
You have been before us so many times that I am not going to say anything else. You understand our approach. You’ve been very kind with your time. I strongly suspect in the year that you have left as secretary general, you’ll be called on for your wisdom and continuing commitment to human rights issues.
On behalf of the committee, I think we want to state that you’ve been very understanding of what parliamentarians need to make the decisions that they have to make on behalf of Canadians.
Thank you for that and thank you for coming again before us on this issue. The floor is yours.
Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada: Thank you very much for those kind words Madam Chair. Thank you for this opportunity to be in front of you on a very important human rights issue.
I’d like to begin by acknowledging that do I so in the unseeded territory of the Algonquin people. Very notable that there has been very impressive solidarity often between Indigenous peoples and Tibetans in many respects over the years.
I want to say what an absolute honour, a humbling honour it is to appear following Dr. Lobsang Sangay.
The timing of your session today is opportune, coming only two days since marking the solemn anniversary of 30 years since the Tiananmen massacres. Of course, also admits the tensions in the Canada-China relationship related to the Meng Wanzhou extradition case. Four Canadians imprisoned and in two instances sentenced to death in circumstances that may well be connected to that extradition case; Michael Kovrig, Michael Spavor, Robert Schellenberg and Fan Wei. Their plight, alongside other cases such as Uyghurs Canadian Huseyincan Celil, imprisoned for 13 years, and Canadian Falun Gong practitioner Sun Qian, imprisoned for over two years, are stark reminders that China’s abysmal human rights record has direct and very serious human rights consequences for Canadians.
The apparatus of the state in China, a web of laws and institutions that has in recent years even further centralized government power and deepened surveillance and control, is the backdrop to an expanding context of repression and intimidation that both directly violates and undermines the human rights of people throughout China, certainly including in Tibet. That includes an ongoing campaign against human rights defenders and lawyers who have been threatened, monitored, arrested, detained, tortured and disappeared for their human rights work.
The range of human rights violations in China is extensive and certainly included systemic breaches of the fundamental freedoms to expression, assembly and religion, particularly of Tibetans, Uyghurs, Falun Gong practitioners and the people of Hong Kong.
There has understandably been recent international attention focused on the massive campaign of repression in China’s western Xinjiang region where over 1 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have been confined to detention camps and subjected to other serious human rights violations.
Torture and the use of the death penalty continue at alarming rates. The death penalty is shrouded in such deep secrecy that Amnesty International does not include statistics regarding executions in China in our global death penalty report. We are confident, however, that China executes more people than the entire rest of the world combined.
There are increasing incidents of repression targeted against Chinese dissidents, human rights activists, Tibetans, Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghurs and others living abroad, including here in Canada. Those measures are rarely adequately investigated by national authorities and very often appear to originate with Chinese officials or proxies linked to the Chinese government.
Efforts by the international community to address human rights violations in China have proven inadequate and have too often lacked serious determination. Many governments, including Canada, are keen to boost trade and investment with China, which is far too often prioritized over human rights concerns. I commend to the committee the Canada-Tibet Committee’s excellent report, Trade and Human Rights in Tibet: Considerations for a human rights sensitive trade policy, which highlights how Canadian trade and investment can and does have a detrimental impact on human rights in Tibet.
Two recent UN human rights reviews of China’s record give us a strong sense of the action needed to address human rights concerns in Tibet.
On November 6 of last year China was examined under the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process. Canada made four recommendations, including to “end prosecution and persecution on the basis of religion or belief” against a number of named groups, including Tibetan Buddhists. The Chinese government rejected that recommendation, noting that, “China is a country under the rule of law and its citizens’ freedom of religious belief is protected in accordance with law. However, those who break the law must be punished in accordance with the law whether they are religious believers or not.”
That response tells us much of the challenges we face.
Also last year, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reviewed China’s anti-racism record. Concerns about the treatment of Tibetans featured prominently, the broad and vague definitions of terrorism, extremism and separatism which lead to criminalization of peaceful, civic and religious expression and criminal profiling of minorities, including Tibetans. The need to independently investigate all deaths in custody, allegations of torture, harassment and reported use of excessive force against members of ethnic minorities, including Tibetans. Significant restrictions on the freedom of movement of Tibetans. Restrictions on Tibetan language teaching in schools, the punishment of Tibetan language advocacy, the lack of Tibetan language translation during court proceedings and discrimination against Tibetans in obtaining employment.
Finally, an area of concern that has always featured prominently in Amnesty International’s research and campaigning regarding human rights violations in Tibet for decades, the extensive detention of prisoners of conscience.
Two weeks ago, Human Rights Watch released a compilation of 80 cases of Tibetan monks and other peaceful critics arbitrarily arrested following March 2008 protests and still in detention 11 years later.
Families are, in most cases, not allowed to visit or to even know where their loved ones are held. There are serious concerns about physical abuse, health and denial of medical care. The cases highlighted include three scholar monks from the Drepung monastery in Lhasa: Jampel Wangchuk, Konchok Nyima and Ngawang Chonyi, who were all arrested in April 2008. They were accused of failing to prevent a protest at the monastery. Reports indicate they took no part in that protest. Their June 2010 trial was held behind closed doors and led to prison sentences of life, 20 years and 15 years. We do not know the charges on which they were convicted.
Let me end with 10 quick bullet points that are our recommendations to the Canadian government.
Number one is to press for the release of all wrongfully, unjustly detained prisoners in Tibet.
Two, call for an end to the use of vaguely defined criminal offences to criminalize the freedom of expression, assembly and religion of Tibetans.
Three, insist that freedom of movement, language rights, religious freedom and equality rights in general of Tibetans be upheld.
Four, urge China to implement all outstanding recommendations from UN human rights reviews dealing with the situation of Tibetans as well as other concerns.
Five, continue to request that Canadian diplomats, UN human rights experts, international human rights organizations and journalists be provided with unhindered access to Tibet.
Six, take up the important recommendations in the Canada Tibet Committee report, Trade and Human Rights in Tibet, including integrating human rights safeguards across all aspects of Canada’s trade policy with China.
Seven, bolster steps taken in this country to investigate interference and harassment in Canada of members of the Tibetan community.
Number 8, champion efforts at the UN Human Rights Council to establish an independent fact-finding mission regarding the current Uyghur crisis, which would be a crucial means of starting to address China’s glaring human rights impunity.
Number 9, increase advocacy with respect to the situation of human rights defenders and lawyers in China.
Finally, number 10, develop a whole-of-government comprehensive strategy for addressing human rights in the Canada-China relationship, including a Canada-Tibet policy.
Those are my comments.
The Chair: Thank you. You’ve generated a list of questioners.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you very much for your presentation and for the recommendations you have made, which I think cover all the issues.
My question is about two of your recommendations. The seventh recommendation refers to — it will be my own free translation, so I hope our interpreters will bear with me — the need to counter intimidation and harassment of Tibetan nationals in Canada. Another recommendation seeks to ensure that defenders of rights and freedom of expression can work freely and without coercion.
Given what we know about the misinformation to which Canadians are subjected because of various associations, but especially because of the pro-Beijing Tibetan Association of Canada, I would like to know, whether the activities of your organization, Amnesty International Canada, have been restricted by an association like that. In addition, how could Canadian authorities do more in practical terms to counter intimidation and misinformation?
[English]
Mr. Neve: Given that I included it in my recommendations, it certainly is a signal that this is a grave area of concern, and not just for Amnesty International. There’s a very robust coalition known as the Canadian Coalition on Human Rights in China, made up of about 10 organizations, all based in Canada, who in various ways are concerned about the human rights situation in China. That coalition, in particular, focuses on the Canada-China human rights relationship. It’s not a coalition that’s, in general, doing advocacy on human rights in China. It’s very much focusing on that interface between Canada and China.
It’s in that regard that over the last several years, not only from our Tibetan colleagues who are parts of that coalition — the Canada Tibet Committee and Students for a Free Tibet Canada are both members of that coalition — but other organizations, the Uyghur Canadian Society, a number of pro-democracy groups, the Falun Gong groups, all started coming forward with numerous accounts of ways in which individually or their organizations or broadly within their communities, they’re being targeted, subject to online surveillance, having their public activities disrupted, having numerous instances of receiving threats, including family members back in China receiving threats for things that are happening here.
About two years ago, we began to compile that. We have now put a confidential report this front of the Canadian government on behalf of the coalition. We’ve not at all pretending that it’s a comprehensive overview. We think that what is in our report is only a minimal set of a number of examples and that the problem is much wider.
Making an urgent call for some concerted action here, one thing I would say, which I think goes to your question about what can be done about it, is that it was troubling as we began to gather these facts how people really don’t know what to do about it. Something has happened. Do I go to the RCMP? Do I call Global Affairs? Is this a CSIS matter? Is it the municipal police? Is it all of that? People tend to turn to all of those agencies and then don’t really get any kind of coordinated, coherent response and, as the old saying goes, things fall through the cracks.
We’re urging — and I think there’s some receptivity on the part of the Canadian government — that there’s a cruel need to put in place a well-coordinated strategy for how these are taken up so that the public security, the intelligence and the criminality aspects of these kinds of activities are understood and get taken up in a coherent way. Because not only is this of broad concern for those of us interested in the Canada-China relationship; this has real consequences for people in their ordinary, daily lives.
Senator Ataullahjan: This is something that has puzzled me for some time, what’s happening with the Uyghurs. Strangely, all the Muslim countries are silent. Is it the growing influence of China, they’re afraid to say anything to offend them? We saw the same — I don’t want to name the countries — with the Rohingya issue. Some of the countries that China is close to were afraid to speak about that issue.
Mr. Neve: I think you’ve provided the answer in your question, senator. Number one, we couldn’t agree more that it is, to say the least, disappointing to see the near total silence from countries with majority Muslim populations in the face of what’s happening to the Uyghur people. There has been some limited exception with Turkey that has spoken up, but there are strong ethnic and cultural ties between the Turkish and Uyghur people that peaks to why we’re seeing more willingness on the part of Turkey to speak out.
Amnesty International, in our campaigning, continues to draw attention to that. We have members and even national sections in some of those countries who are doing everything they can to try and encourage those governments to speak out. The OIC has a body in particular; the Organization of the Islamic Conference is one we’ve been speaking to and highlighting, as have others in our advocacy materials.
I think you’re quite right; this is reflective of a concern we see more widely with respect to China and human rights on the world stage. China has incredible and always growing global influence now because of its trade and investment policies and a muscular presence in many parts of world. I think your observation is quite right; what accounts for much of the silence is that they have dissuaded, either implicitly or explicitly, governments from speaking out.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you again for being with us. Therefore, given your latter comments, there’s no reasonable expectation we can at all achieve agreement between the Tibetans and China given what’s happening. I gather we’re years away. I also note no other country has acknowledged the independence as a country of Tibetans. What do you see? Fast-forward the next 10 or 15 years. Is there any chance of progress?
Mr. Neve: I should begin by saying Amnesty International’s piece of this story isn’t so much some of the very urgent political considerations around independence and political status, all of which are crucial and are certainly very often directly linked to the human rights considerations. We are focused on the kinds of human rights changes that we need to see happen and would suggest that in that context, there’s an important role for Canada to play as much as possible working in a coordinated fashion with other governments.
Canada’s interventions and voices with respect to some of the things I highlighted around political prisoners or language rights or those kinds of changes isn’t going to break through on our own. It needs to be part of a coordinated strategy, both across the entirety of the Canadian government — we’re leveraging all of the places in which we have exchanged and influence with China, not just our diplomats who carry the human rights file, for instance.
Also, of course, crucially, in very close strategic coordination with other countries. And not only the usual suspects. I think we can almost always line up Australia, the United States and Western Europe. We clearly need to continue to broaden that network, which comes back to the earlier question about the difficulties there are of bringing other governments into that strategy because they’re sort of beholden to or fearful of upsetting China. I think there needs to be a lot of focus on that.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: From a general perspective, following Mr. Trump’s election in the United States, some quite positive signals have emerged from some of the speeches from China and Europe, giving us hope that international exchanges would be conducted with respect and responsibility, as well as within society in general. However, for some time now, we have felt that things have sort of gone sideways. It seems to me that we have gone back to the old, heavy-handed method of trying to get one’s way, even in Canada.
Do you think people were sincere at the outset when we heard some important people say that we were global citizens, partly because of free trade agreements and democracy? What do you think about it all?
[English]
Mr. Neve: That’s a very important big picture question. I couldn’t agree more that those are very challenging currents on the global stage. The disruptive Trump factor, is clearly one that has posed very serious challenges, for instance, for Canada. In the sense of the direct reverberations and repercussions in our relationship with China and in where we position ourselves. I think that comes back again to I guess the final recommendation, that comes from Amnesty International but in fact I should highlight is one that the coalition I referred to earlier has been promoting for many years. That’s the need for a really are thoughtful, deliberate, comprehensive strategy that goes across the entirety of Canadian government if we’re going to make any progress.
Senator Cordy: Thank you so much for being in front of our committee again and for the work you do. You are tireless in your advocacy for human rights, so thank you so much for doing that.
Some of the things you said in your comments are not a surprise; China executes more people than the whole rest of the world, and their anti-racism record. We just heard from the previous witness about the fact of life for Tibetans and yet we look at our shelves when we go shopping and the vast majority of products are made in China. Your comment was that many governments are willing to overlook the human rights records for trade with China.
How do we square that off? It’s not just in Canada; it’s almost any country that you go to, you look on the shelves and it’s all made in China. How do we reconcile that?
Mr. Neve: We need a human rights-based trade policy. We need a human rights-based trade policy with respect to China, but we would say we need a globally applicable human rights-based trade policy that’s not just about putting a few aspirational feel good-human rights words into trade deals but is about combining that with real and concrete measures, human rights impact assessments, clear processes when it can be demonstrated that an approach to trade is leading to human rights violations.
Amnesty International is not saying that there shouldn’t be trade between Canada and China or that we shouldn’t be seeing those made-in-China products on Canadian shelves. We need to have an assurance that it’s in a context that’s giving serious and deliberate consideration to human rights. Focusing on Tibet in particular, I would highlight the excellent report from the Canada-Tibet Committee on Canada’s approach to trade in Tibet. It gives all sorts of concrete examples and has a number of very important recommendations that would help address the disquiet that you’re reflecting in your question.
The Chair: I’m going to ask a question, Alex, if I can.
We changed from the Human Rights Commission. We knew the difficulties there and we went to the new Human Rights Council, which is supposed to have been smaller, more efficient and more pointed on human rights issues. There’s a lot of comment in the human rights communities around the world that our voice — the Western voice, if you want to call it — or those who had been very loud in the Human Rights Commission are less prominent and that there’s less space to deal with issues and build coalitions now than there was. Therefore, issues like Tibet do not find residence in the same way. Are you finding it more difficult to work within the council? Is that a fair assessment of some of the leadership and some of the focuses they’re placing there?
Mr. Neve: I’d love to give a one-hour lecture now in response to that, because there’s so much to say. I think a couple of things to highlight. Number one, when it comes to China in particular, we never were able to break through at the Human Rights Commission either. China, every year, successfully and very aggressively, blocked efforts that Amnesty International and others initiated to try to encourage that a resolution is passed with respect to China’s human rights record.
In some regards, the move to the Human Rights Council has given a bit more space for some focus on China in that alongside the Human Rights Council we have this new Universal Periodic Review system, which ensures that every single government, every four and a half years, has their human rights record reviewed. That never happened in the commission. The commission never took a moment to look at China’s human rights record. That gives us at least some space where, once every four and a half years, China’s record is in that global spotlight and being questioned by other countries. Last year in China’s review at the UPR, 150 countries submitted questions and made recommendations, including Canada. So that’s something.
At the end of the day, though, yes, things are still unbelievably disappointing, very frequently dysfunctional at the Human Rights Council. I don’t think that’s necessarily because of the change from the commission to the council. It’s probably more broadly reflective of global trends, the polarization, the number of governments that feel at ease in directly attacking and undermining the integrity of multilateral processes, including in the area of human rights. There’s a lot of work for Canada to do there.
I would give a very brief shout-out, which I do from time to time, to the Canadian government. At the last session of the UN Human Rights Council, Canada and a couple of other countries took the brave step of sponsoring what in Human Rights Council speak is known as a side event, so not happening in the main room but outside the main room, focusing on the crackdown against the Uyghur population in China. China was incensed, as they often are, and made it clear they were incensed about that and encountered with a disinformation campaign, going back to the earlier question about disinformation. We’re hoping that Canada is going to stick with that bravery and now look for ways to take that to the next step. We’re not naive enough to imagine that it’s going to be possible to get a resolution at the next session of the Human Rights Council. We’re encouraging Canada to work jointly with other states to at least make a joint public statement of some kind around the Uyghur situation. These are small steps forward. It’s not directly relevant to the situation in Tibet. I think it is relevant to the broader concern here of ensuring that China has some accountability and scrutiny. If they can’t be held accountable and be scrutinized with respect to the Uyghurs, then we’re never going to make progress with respect to Tibet.
The Chair: I hope that’s an optimistic note that we’re ending on, where you say that we continue to try. In the Human Rights Commission we didn’t have resolutions, but we tried. I think we have to be consistently putting forward what we believe is right and correct in the human rights field. Thank you for coming again and reminding us of Canada’s responsibilities and our individual responsibilities. Senators, we will thank Mr. Neve again. I’m sure you’ll be before this committee again. As usual, you leave us with many challenges and we need that.
Senators, we will now turn to our final panellist, Mr. Shawn Steil, Executive Director of Greater China Policy and Coordination from Global Affairs Canada.
Shawn Steil, Executive Director, Greater China Policy and Coordination, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you very much for the opportunity to be before the committee.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, members of the committee, I am pleased to come before this committee to update you on the situation in Tibet and Canada’s recent engagements in this area.
[English]
I know we are constrained by time. I will limit my opening remarks so that we can have time for questions.
[Translation]
Let me begin with a few remarks about the importance of human rights in Canada’s relationship with China more broadly. The promotion and protection of human rights is an integral part of Canadian foreign policy and is a priority in our government’s engagement with China.
[English]
Our engagement on human rights is multifaceted and encompasses activities that range from high-level visits to public statements and more quiet advocacy in both bilateral and multilateral fora.
Throughout the course of our bilateral interactions, Canada has consistently called on the Chinese government to respect the fundamental freedoms of all Chinese citizens.
[Translation]
On numerous occasions, we have reminded the Government of China that its ongoing persecution of religious and ethnic minorities, including in Tibet, is not only incompatible with its international obligations, but also its own constitution.
[English]
Canada remains deeply concerned about the human rights situation affecting Tibetans, which include the protection of linguistic and cultural rights. The detention and sentencing of Mr. Tashi Wangchuk, an ethnic Tibetan businessman from Qinghai province to five years in prison in May 2018 for his simple advocacy of Tibetan linguistic and cultural rights as permitted under Chinese law is but one example of the recent troubling developments concerning the human rights situation in China. In this particular case, we have not only appealed to the Government of China for Mr. Wangchuk’s unconditional release but have also endorsed a public statement by United Nations experts calling for charges against Mr. Wangchuk to be dropped.
[Translation]
As part of our broader human rights engagement with China, Canada’s concerns were conveyed to Chinese authorities at the highest levels.
[English]
I won’t list all of the venues and occasions in which we’ve raised the human rights situation. We have mainstreamed this kind of advocacy at the highest levels with China.
On the multilateral front, Canada co-sponsored a statement at the 2018 Ministerial Meeting to Advance Religious Freedom in Washington, D.C., that called on the Chinese government to respect the rights of all individuals. In that statement, we noted the severe repression faced by religious minority groups such as Tibetan Buddhists in China. These efforts were followed by our subsequent public recommendations to China on human rights as part of our Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva in November 2018. At that time, Canada recommended that China end persecutions on the basis of religion or belief, including Tibetan Buddhists.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I must note that the human rights situation in China, including in Tibet, remains a source of unabating concern for Canada.
[English]
To that end, we will continue to raise the responsibilities of the Chinese government to protect human rights, advise them of our preoccupations and continue to urge the Chinese government to respect their own laws, as well as their international obligations each time we have the opportunity.
I will close with one more point that was mentioned earlier about access. We continue to demand access for Canadian diplomats and journalists to Tibet. Unfortunately, the last time we’ve had a senior-level official visit Tibet was in 2015. Despite that, we continue to urge the Chinese authorities to allow a visit that is unfettered and unhindered so that we can better understand the real situation in Tibet.
With that, I’d be happy to take questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Steil.
Senator Ngo: Mr. Steil, thank you for coming. Minister Freeland’s statement on Canada’s position on advocating dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama or his representative, could you tell us if any concrete measures have been taken toward that end?
Mr. Steil: Indeed, it has been our consistent policy to advocate for dialogue so that the legitimate grievances in Tibet can be addressed. On concrete steps toward that direction, we’ve seen none on the part of the Chinese government. In the past, policy papers have indicated some openness with rather severe conditions for dialogue with Tibetan authorities, including the Dalai Lama. In the most recent White Paper that China released on Tibet on the sixtieth anniversary of the Dalai Lama’s entry into exile, there was no longer any mention of that openness. In fact, despite our continued advocacy for dialogue, there appears be less enthusiasm for that on the part of China.
Senator Dean: Thanks, Mr. Steil, for being here today, for this report on Canada’s advocacy and efforts to improve human rights in China and beyond. It is clear that Canada is one of the leaders internationally in these efforts, particularly at a time when the relationship between those two countries is delicate, to say the least.
We heard earlier a call for greater alignment across government thinking and programs. You work in the area of policy coordination, I note, something of which I’m a big fan. Could you tell us a little bit about the way these policies are coordinated across departments?
Mr. Steil: My domain of responsibility is foreign policy primarily, but you’ve rightly pointed out that my job title, which is a rather new unit within Global Affairs Canada, takes on some responsibility for coordination of policy. I think that’s in part a recognition that, as my colleague Alex Neve highlighted, with questions concerning our relations with China and advocacy on China, it requires a multi-faceted, coordinated approach.
These are early days in that mandate. I can tell you that I’ve been working on and in China for a long time. I’ve seen us move, over the last decade, to a much more coordinated approach in terms of the kinds of conversations we have around town and even more broadly with Canadians. So, where you may have seen more siloed discussions on issues such as economy and security, you’re now seeing one conversation — with many points of view, of course, but one conversation. Much of my time is involved with coordinating those discussions on any number of issues.
If I could comment on Mr. Neve’s recommendation for a better coherence on things like foreign influence and interference. That’s a particularly broad area that requires leadership from not only the Global Affairs foreign policy side of the shop but many others. I can say those are conversations that we have at an increasing rate.
Senator Dean: Thank you for crossing boundaries.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you, sir, for being with us this morning.
From my perspective, with the election of Mr. Trump in the United States, there seems to be a vacuum for worldwide leadership and even against all the institutions, such as the World Bank, NATO, the WTO and so on. It would appear that the Chinese people had come forth in saying they would be contributing to this leadership and trying to entice European support as if they are the good guys.
More recently, in the last six or nine months, it looks like we have gone back 10 years where China is exercising or exerting its muscular economic, political and military interests to take a stronger position.
How do you read that? Two years ago, was that only a camouflage of real intentions and now we’re dealing with the real China? Could you help us out here?
Mr. Steil: On the U.S. position, I would start by pointing out that my American colleagues are very quick to underline that there’s bipartisan support for the approach that the U.S. is adopting to China.
What’s instigated that would be a matter for debate or speculation, but it was probably in part instigated by China’s own policies and approaches. Under Xi Jinping, it’s become clear — and he’s been quite vocal — through policy statements that China is adopting a different model of government, rejecting the Western model of democracy and putting at the centre of that model the Communist Party of China.
That policy, whether it’s the Made in China 2025 policy or other less well-known policies, has reinforced the notion that the Communist Party should be involved in many aspects of Chinese life.
One example where there’s been some expression of concern is the establishment of party cells within state-owned companies. There have been concerns raised about how that works in joint ventures where there are foreign investment or foreign companies. So many are watching that carefully to see how it manifests itself.
The jury is out on what kind of role these party cells might play within the parties. It may vary, but those kinds of examples, where the party is explicitly asserting for itself a larger role in day-to-day life, commercial affairs and in the judiciary, as well as in more harsh manners in places like Tibet, are cause for concern. That is probably part of the reason that there’s a bipartisan effort in the United States to push back.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
Senator Boehm: Mr. Steil, I want to follow up on Senator Massicotte’s question.
In my experience, we would always get together at international gatherings with the like-minded, if it was on a resolution, an initiative or something like that. We always knew who the like-minded were.
Now it’s becoming a little less clear.
I know you’ve been a head of mission in the Asian area. In dealing with human rights issues, particularly in China, like-minded countries are becoming more difficult to find in Asia, as well. We still have the usual European and Japanese reticence, more so than other countries.
On the basis of your experience, are you seeing a fundamental shift here? Related to that, is Canada increasingly isolated?
Mr. Steil: If I take one example of the Human Rights Council and China’s Universal Periodic Review, our sense in counting the numbers is that we’re in a smaller and smaller group willing to speak out and make quite substantive recommendations. The number mentioned was 155. A majority of those statements and questions were softballs, essentially. In that sense, yes, we are becoming more isolated.
On the positive side, I think we’re at a point in China’s development history where they’re only now coming up against the real constraints of what an international leadership role might look like. The pushback is starting in Asia in ways that may have surprised China in some senses.
The more obvious ones are related to the Belt and Road Initiative that China is nominally fostering as a means for infrastructure development, but also to urge supply chains and connections with China.
There are now cases where some countries having a negative experience with some of these investments, with Sri Lanka as one example, are starting to push back in some sectors of those societies with wariness about what the model of governance is that’s following these investments.
China offers an attractive model of governance in difficult, chaotic times if you are a fledgling government, as are many in the region. I was ambassador to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. After 25 years of dependence, you’re still testing out the limits, constraints and headaches that come with democratic reform, for example.
When China can offer a state-to-state relationship where the authority of the state is reinforced, perhaps at the expense of the individual’s rights, that can be very attractive for some who are dealing for the first time with pushback from their citizens with demands for greater rights and these sorts of things.
You rightly pointed out that this is an area where we have to be somewhat concerned. The signs, even in those places, are that the population is wary of the influence on their own governments and is pushing back on some of these things.
I’m hopeful that our traditional allies will be able to find ways to work with other countries who are seeking another model and other partners beyond their immediate neighbours in Asia.
The Chair: I cut off Senator Ngo, so he gets the final question.
Senator Ngo: China is committing such clear human rights violations against the Uyghurs, the Tibetans and Falun Gong. China is the worst for persecution of all the world’s countries combined. Why hasn’t Canada established a sanction targeted at Chinese officials?
Mr. Steil: On the specifics of what sanctions might be available, I’d have to defer to my colleagues who deal with that directly. My understanding is that’s not always an easy decision to take or always driven by those of us who deal with the bilateral relationship.
It’s difficult for me to answer. I will comment on other policy measures that might be out there, some we may consider.
Some of you may be aware of the Tibet Reciprocal Access Act that was passed in the United States. The United States passed legislation that would demand reciprocity in terms of visits to the Tibetan region. There’s some success to that. Not long after passing that legislation, the U.S. ambassador was allowed to visit Tibet. I understand it was a highly scripted visit, but nonetheless he was able to visit.
There’s consideration amongst others about what measures you could take in that kind of direction. Our position on some of that has been that because of the limited access and opportunities to engage in dialogue on these things, as this committee knows, when there are visits from Tibetan authorities to this country, we have a rare opportunity to communicate Canada’s positions and concerns to those who are directly involved in the administration of the Tibet Autonomous Region.
That’s been our position up to now.
From my perspective — and you’ve seen my job title, policy and coordination — we’re always looking at what policy options are out there and what we might make a recommendation on. For the moment, we’ve stayed on the course of consistency, consistent access and dialogue.
Senator Ngo: Thank you. If that’s the case, that you have policy, do you think it’s time for Canada to change its position regarding the One China policy?
Mr. Steil: The One-China policy is the basis of forming a bilateral relationship, our official diplomatic relationship with China since 1970. As you may be aware, we take note without endorsing or challenging the People’s Republic of China’s claims on Taiwan. That policy has served us very well in maintaining our relationship with the People’s Republic of China as well as a very active engagement with Taiwan.
I don’t see any revisiting of that policy.
As it relates to Tibet, Canada’s policy has been that while Tibet represents a very distinct cultural, linguistic and religious area of China, we have not questioned the People’s Republic of China’s sovereignty over Tibet.
Senator Ngo: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Steil, thank you for coming before us. I have just one comment on sanctions.
I haven’t heard anyone say that we should, at this point, have targeted sanctions against the Government of China. I trust that is always within assessments. That’s your job, to determine what the best moves are for the government.
One of the issues is tracing money of those who have persistently and consistently violated human rights in their country. It can be sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act. The difficulty is that, with China, we can’t follow the money or have not taken the steps to follow the money, the money laundering. It is not as transparent as some other countries where we’ve been able to identify what happened in the country, where the money went and how Canada ties to it. That’s an area of study and innovation that you might wish to look at. The government has announced it’s going to do more on money laundering and issues of illegal transfers of money. I think we need to do a lot more on that and then maybe we will have more information.
You have a very large task. I might have misstated your title because it’s greater China policy and coordination. I couldn’t think of a more challenging title and position. We wish you well in that and will want to follow up the successes and the difficulties that you have with this position.
Senators, we have two options. We could continue in-camera or we could cancel the in-camera portion and we’ll try and give you information.
What we want to do is give you information ahead of time about a report that we, as you know, are looking to release very shortly. We can do it by correspondence and give you a bit of an update on a possible bit of our preparation towards the new NAFTA or CUSMA or whatever you want to call it. The steering committee, we want to assure you, has been working. We will debrief you in a confidential manner; that way you might get some lunch.
Does that entice you to adjourn?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)