Canada-China Relations Committee on Aug. 17th, 2020

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, first, I want to check with you to see if you are able to see raised hands, because as soon as you opened the meeting, I clicked on the Raise Hand button, but you do not seem to have seen it. If you do not see raised hands, I will continue waving, because that might be more effective.

Anyway, back to the meeting. I have a number of comments.

First, I would like to comment on the amendment. Deciding to deal with motions and possible reports on an ad-hoc basis, when we agreed from the outset to have only one report, is an indication of the trouble we are in right now. If we are to continue down this road and have reports on specific issues, I would like them to be considered interim reports, so that we can keep discussing the issue of Tibet, for instance, and not have everything finalized with the motions we are passing today.

We may have put the cart before the horse, as they say. Since the community expects us to echo what the president of the Tibetan administration is saying, we are in a situation where we are almost forced to pass this motion, and I am uneasy with us being in a situation like that today. The motion makes sense, but I would not want it to stop us from going deeper into the problematic issue of Tibet.

That is why I will at least support the motion of which Mr. Harris has given us notice and which suggests that we will continue to discuss and reflect on the Tibet situation. However, once again I would caution us against the temptation to come up at any moment with motions that put the committee in an uncomfortable position, keep us from getting to the bottom of things and, more importantly, keep us from making the connections we need to make between various issues.

Next, I would like to talk about Ms. Alleslev's proposal. I have heard Mr. Harris's arguments and those put forward by Liberal colleagues so far. My initial reaction was to say that having to improve a motion thrown at us on the fly in the middle of a committee meeting, rather than discussing it amongst ourselves, is an indication of the trouble we are in right now.

I would therefore ask you to avoid this type of manoeuvre in the future, as we can clearly see the trouble it puts us in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

First of all, I must say I did not see you hit the Raise Hand button.

A few days ago, House of Commons technicians tried to fix the issue. I thought they had succeeded, but apparently they did not. So I am going to ask the clerk to make sure that I can act as co-host, so that I can see the raised hands. It is quite important when we are videoconferencing on Zoom. I have to take care of all of that, while managing allotted speaking times.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

I listened to what Mr. Oliphant and Mr. Virani said, and I think that is correct.

Given the difficulties we're having—I want to echo what Mr. Bergeron just said—the exact wording is not clear because it's not before us.

I heard Mr. Virani use the words “and/or” to allow the greatest possibility, but I'm not sure that's what is in the motion itself. There are envoys, the CTA or the Dalai Lama. Is that the...? Any combination of those is part of the motion. Is the wording accurate for that? That's the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

If I'm understanding your question, Ms. Alleslev's motion to amend would insert after the word “between”, “representatives of the Tibetan people (His Holiness the Dalai Lama or his representatives and/or”. Then after “Central Tibetan Administration”, she would insert a closed bracket. That would be the change she's proposed.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I hope we can go to a vote, because our time is getting low here.

Madam Clerk, would you please proceed to a recorded vote?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Now, we're on to Mr. Genuis' second motion. I'll just read the English quickly since we are low on time. Mr. Genuis' moved that the committee prepare a report on the situation in Hong Kong—

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Christine Holke]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. We need to vote on the motion as amended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I'm sorry. Thank you so much. Please proceed to Mr. Virani.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

We've had no debate on that motion as amended, either.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

No, we haven't.

I see that Mr. Virani and Mr. Harris wish to debate on the main motion.

Mr. Virani.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll keep it brief.

In terms of the Sino-Tibetan dialogue, just for the committee's benefit, this was something that was active and ongoing between 2002 and 2005. Four meetings took place, three in the People's Republic of China and one in Switzerland. It came to an abrupt end shortly thereafter. Since it came to an end, Canada has taken the public position that the dialogue should be resumed. I think resuming it is critical.

It's critical for the rights of Tibetans, who struggle for linguistic, cultural and religious freedom. It's also critical for clarifying misunderstandings about what the Tibetan cause is all about and for clarifying what the middle-way approach seeks to do, which is not a call for rebellion or separatism but a call for autonomy on those bases—religious, cultural and linguistic autonomy—within the construct and the confines of the Chinese constitution. It's simply seeking to fulfill the rights that are already guaranteed under that Chinese constitution. It has been aptly described and articulated by an academic named Michael Van Walt Van Praag, to whom I would commend people.

I've heard the appeals for the resumption of this dialogue from my constituents and from people around the country and from the diaspora literally around the planet. It's critical that we resume it. That is why I and my party will be supporting this motion.

I will say that I think the timing is a bit awkward, in terms of doing it right in the middle of the meeting when we do have other motions to consider, such as Mr. Harris's proper motion about hearing from others on the Tibetan cause, but I will speak to that when the time arrives. I will be casting my vote in favour of this motion, as amended, rightfully, by Ms. Alleslev, because broadening it out is a critical step forward.

Thank you. Thuk-je-che.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have Mr. Harris, Mr. Bergeron and Ms. Alleslev.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll be brief because I did express my support for this motion the last time it was raised, with the concern that we hadn't heard from other witnesses on the question of Tibet and that we ought not to be setting a precedent of dealing with questions in a piecemeal way. Therefore, I have my own motion put forward, and I understand there's a consensus on that among committee members, but we'll see.

It's important that we continue with our full study, but this is an important issue for the Tibetan community and the Tibetan people, and I think the fact of the matter is that it's before our committee now, even though somewhat irregularly, and I think we should pass it and give it our full endorsement.

Thank you.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have nothing more to add to what I have already had the chance to say.

I will therefore be in favour of this motion as amended. However, I would once again caution us against the temptation to make motions unannounced when we agreed to have a full comprehensive report so that we can make connections between the various issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have Ms. Alleslev and then Mr. Oliphant.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

My apologies, Mr. Chair, but I didn't have my hand up this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I am just going to say that, yes, I support the motion as amended. I think it's important. However, I am looking for a general nodding of heads and an agreement in a gentle person's way that this does not preclude us from continuing study on Tibet. We've heard from only one witness on Tibet. I don't think that's appropriate. I would much sooner, as Mr. Bergeron has said, wait until we've heard from other witnesses. I know Mr. Harris will be bringing something, but I just want to trust that we have an agreement within the committee that this doesn't mean we're done with Tibet and that we will continue. Otherwise, I couldn't vote for this motion.

We've been put in kind of an awkward situation, as Mr. Bergeron said, that we of course want to support this motion, but someone could, at a subcommittee, say, “We've done Tibet, so now let's just move on.” I think we need to consider civil society, Canadians of Tibetan origin, officials and all of those things. For a full report on Canada-China, we need those.

I just need to see heads shaking for “yes”. I'm getting it from Leona. When we're in a room, we can kind of read body language. I'm seeing it from Garnett. Are we okay with that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I think you have it.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I still see hands up for Mr. Harris and Mr. Bergeron, but that may be from their previous...? Yes. Remember to take those hands down once you're done, if you don't mind. I thought they expired automatically, but apparently not.

I'll ask the clerk, then, to proceed to the recorded vote on the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11, nays 0)

We're now at the end of our half-hour.

Madam Clerk, can you assist me a bit here?

[The Clerk]

We have our three witnesses waiting in the waiting room, but they've been told that we are doing committee business and it might be a bit longer, so it's up to the committee to proceed in the way it wishes to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Right.

Mr. Genuis, would you like to proceed with your motion?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair, I would. Hopefully, if we take an extra 15 minutes, we will have time for my motion and for Mr. Harris's motion. I want to make sure he has the opportunity as well. Since I have the floor, I'll move quickly.

Notice of my motion has been given. It's with respect to having a report at the end of this Hong Kong study. Just to briefly motivate this, we are dealing with urgent, unfolding events. It's important that we report on them to the House of Commons when we're finished this study. We can't wait until the end of a macrodiscussion of Canada-China relations. The ground, in terms of what's happening in Hong Kong, may shift substantially between now and that future time.

Also, everybody knows we're in a minority Parliament. Mr. Blanchet is talking about putting forward a non-confidence motion. We could be in a situation where, at any time, we could go to an election. If that happens, we won't have time to take all of this and put it into a report. I think part of the necessity for an interim report on Hong Kong is the urgency of the situation. It is also the fact that a lot of that work might just end up being lost.

I hope as a procedural matter the committee members will agree that when we finish our hearings on Hong Kong, we will take what we've learned and do our job, namely, advise Parliament, advise the government, based on what we have heard. I think providing that feedback specifically about the situation in Hong Kong will be very important.

That's the rationale for this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Oliphant, Ms. Alleslev and Mr. Harris.

Mr. Oliphant.