Canada-China Relations Committee on Aug. 6th, 2020

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

Yes, the Communist Party is a declared atheist party, but it claims to have the authority to recognize reincarnate lamas. We saw the Dalai Lama jokingly say that if they are very serious about reincarnation, then they must first find the reincarnation of Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping, the great Chinese Communist Party leaders. Then once they have developed some expertise and credibility, only then can they talk about the reincarnation of Tibetan lamas. I think it's bizarre for them to claim to have authority on spiritual matters.

Yes, I think that Tibet has been the first victim. The blueprint that they used in Tibet is being used everywhere. Having travelled to the African continent, Latin America, Europe and elsewhere, I know that elite co-optation is the classic case, where they co-opt the elite and influence various leaders to support the Chinese version of the narrative as well as Chinese government policies.

As far as the colonization of Tibet is concerned, with regard to natural resources, such as gold, copper, borax and uranium, the Chinese government has declared that Tibet has around 123 different kinds of minerals, billions and billions of dollars' worth, and all of these are being exploited by Chinese companies, in tandem with Chinese officials, purely for profit. For example, I think that 70% of the lithium in China comes from Tibet, and we all use Chinese products that have lithium batteries.

Why are Chinese products so cheap? It is because they do not pay anything to the Tibetan farmers and nomads from where they extract all the lithium. When the extraction is very complicated, they use a lot of chemicals. They pollute our soil. They pollute our air and water, but they extract it for free. They put it in Chinese gadgets and sell it.

Similarly, 90% of rare earths at one time came from Inner Mongolia or Outer Mongolia. However, they don't pay anything to the Mongolians, but they extract it and use it in Chinese products. Obviously, colonization and exploitation of natural resources is taking place.

Tibetans in Nepal are in a very serious situation. Since 1990, any Tibetan who was born and brought up in Nepal does not even get a birth certificate. They don't have a residency card. They don't have travel documents, so a lot of Tibetans are forced to leave Nepal and go to Canada, Europe and other places. Under Chinese government pressure, Tibetans in Nepal even today are living in very, very tough conditions. You can clearly see that the Chinese government influence is not just restricted to Tibetans inside Tibet. Even Tibetans in exile in Nepal are under tremendous pressure. This is the situation of Tibetans in Nepal.

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

Thank you.

I wonder if you could also speak to.... You talked about some of the repression around natural resources and mining. We've heard suggestions at the human rights subcommittee around the issue of Uighurs and doing something about supply chains. What suggestions would you have around ensuring that our supply chains are not polluted by the abuse of human rights or that companies are not involved in supplying security technology that's used in the abuses of human rights?

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

Yes, I think it's very important that for any kind of exploitation of natural resources we find the origin of the raw materials. Often it comes from Xinjiang or it comes from Tibet.

We always say that for any Chinese company or any company—Canadian companies had investment in gold mining and copper mining in Tibet as well—we have to investigate these cases and find out if they are environmentally sustainable, culturally sensitive and economically beneficial to the Tibetan people. If that is not the case, then these Canadian companies or investors should be held accountable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Dr. Sangay.

We've gone over Mr. Genuis's time by a few seconds.

Mr. Virani, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[Member spoke in Tibetan]

[English]

For the benefit of those of you who don't speak Tibetan, I just said, “Thank you very much for participating in this special Canada-China committee today.”

It's obviously very late in Dharamsala. We are also very grateful to you for putting up with our procedural indulgences at the start of this meeting. Thank you for participating, but also thank you for your leadership in promoting internationally the cause of Tibet and the struggle of the Tibetan people for basic human rights.

I am the representative of 7,000 Canadians of Tibetan descent in my riding of Parkdale-High Park, one of whom you mentioned in your remarks—the fellow who walked back and forth from Toronto to Ottawa. Know that your advocacy is appreciated by my constituents and by me personally.

I want to raise at least a couple of issues in the time that we have. I'll ask you to be somewhat brief in your responses.

The first relates to the Panchen Lama. It is a very important year, as you outlined, because it is the 25th anniversary of his disappearance. At the age of six, when he disappeared, he was known as the world's youngest political prisoner and religious prisoner. He was six years old at the time, and he has not been seen for 25 years.

When the official Tibetan delegation appeared in the last Parliament in 2018, I felt it incumbent upon me to appear at that committee and ask some pointed questions. I asked Mr. Baimawangdui about the whereabouts of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, and he said that he is living a normal life with his family and does not wish to be disturbed. We know that there have been statements from the Chinese foreign ministry stating that he has finished his schooling and he is now working.

The first thing I want to ask you—if you could answer in about 60 seconds—is, are you satisfied with this type of response from the Chinese foreign ministry, and has the Central Tibetan Administration attempted to verify the accuracy of this information?

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

Absolutely not. Five UN human rights experts have recently—just a few days ago—raised this issue, that they want to know the whereabouts of Panchen Lama.

It's been now.... He's 31 years old. The Chinese government says that he is 31 years old, a college graduate, has a job and his family members do not want to be disturbed. I think it's absolutely baseless. From what we know, even his siblings are not allowed to visit and meet him, like regular siblings. Parents are not allowed. Parents and siblings are all kept apart in various parts of China. They can meet only with the permission of the Chinese government, once or twice a year. Even family visits are not allowed.

If he's actually free, if he doesn't want to be disturbed, we would like to see him in Ottawa. Let him appear before the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. Let him speak his mind. Let his parents come. Let his siblings come.

Absolutely, we are very worried about his whereabouts. To be disappeared for 25 years is a gross violation of human rights.

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

Thank you, Sikyong Lob.

I want to build upon that and ask you about the state of basic religious, linguistic and cultural freedoms within the PRC.

We've heard about the Uighurs. As a Muslim Canadian, I am appalled by what we are hearing about the Uighurs, but I'm also troubled by their status being a bit more well known right now than some of the other violations of basic cultural, religious and linguistic freedoms, such as those that relate to your community: Buddhist temples, which are ostensibly open in China, not being allowed to display a picture of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, a man who is an honorary citizen of our country; the fact that Larung Gar and Yarchen Gar in the Kham province in eastern Tibet, where thousands of monks and nuns receive their training, were literally decimated by the PRC; and the fact that in January 2016, Tashi Wangchuk, a language advocate who promotes the use and the instruction of the Tibetan language, was arrested and subsequently convicted, against the pleas of many international countries, Canada included.

Can you please tell us a little bit about the current state of affairs regarding the linguistic, cultural and religious freedom of Tibetans living in the People's Republic of China and what that should indicate to us in terms of policy to be developed here in Canada, along with those international allies you mentioned we need to be developing?

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

Thank you very much.

According to one report, 92% of publications in Lhasa are in the Chinese language; only 8% are in the Tibetan language. Clearly you can see that China's government is investing a lot to promote the Chinese language as the medium of instruction, using China's language as the main one and undermining the Tibetan language, even though, constitutionally, the Tibetan language ought not only to be used, but also to be promoted by the Chinese government.

Yes, Buddhist temples and monasteries are destroyed. You mentioned the cases of Larung Gar and Yarchen Gar. You can google Yarchen Gar. You can see clearly that half of the infrastructure of Yarchen Gar has disappeared. It's flat. It just happened in the last few years that several nuns also committed suicide. Nowadays even a monk or a nun, to leave their monastery to go to another place, needs to seek permission. For district-to-district travel, they need to seek permission. This is the kind of repression and constraints put on the Tibetan people who would like to follow their religion.

Now, Tashi Wangchuk was simply asking for what is already guaranteed in the Chinese constitution and the minority national act, 1984: that the Tibetan language be allowed to be used, bilingually, as a medium of instruction. He was chronicled by none other than The New York Times, saying that he was following the law of the land. However, he was sentenced as a separatist and is in prison.

Even those basic rights are not allowed—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Doctor, I'm sorry to interrupt. You may have chances with other questions to go further on that.

We'll now continue with Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Sangay, for joining us despite the late hour. I'm sorry for the procedural delay at the start of the meeting.

As you may know, this committee is particularly concerned about the current situation in Hong Kong. Over the next few days, we'll be looking at the situation more closely. I gather that you've drawn a parallel between the situation in Tibet and the current situation in Hong Kong. You spoke of the 17-point agreement negotiated in the early 1950s and the national security law that was passed and that now applies to Hong Kong.

What specific point are you trying to make by drawing this parallel, which you established some time ago? What should we learn from this comparison?

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

Yes, I think the honourable member raised the right issue. As I said, what happened in Tibet could happen to you.

In Tibet, the one country, two systems, which was later provided to Hong Kong, was already promised in 1951 through the 17-point agreement. For example, article 4 of that agreement says that the authority and status of the Dalai Lama would remain the same. The Tibetan language would be allowed to be used, and monasteries could function as before. Any reform would happen only after consulting and seeking the consent of the Tibetan people. All of these were provided in the 17-point agreement, but from 1951 to 1959, the Chinese government violated, essentially, all of the provisions of that agreement. Even though this agreement was forced on us, it was violated, which forced the Dalai Lama and 80,000 Tibetans to flee into exile.

Since then, they have passed a unity law. Now, whenever unity and autonomy come into conflict, unity prevails. Similarly, in Hong Kong, the security law is the same. With security and autonomy, when they come into conflict, security will prevail. Human rights, freedom of speech and the right to protest will all be secondary to the security law and the security of China and Hong Kong. Hence, the dilution of the one country, two systems in Hong Kong is not surprising. It happened in Tibet before.

We are very concerned. I have said recently that Hong Kong is becoming a second Tibet. What happened in Tibet and what is happening in Tibet will surely happen in Hong Kong. All of those promises made by the Chinese government to the Tibetan people were betrayed; similarly, that's what is happening in Hong Kong.

Yes, there are 300,000 Hong Kongers who have Canadian residency or citizenship. Whether they'll be allowed to return to Canada should be considered positively, like the Government of the United Kingdom is doing.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Based on this definitive assessment of the current situation in Hong Kong, how can you hope to reach an agreement with the Government of the People's Republic of China? In your opinion, what level of openness and what type of international pressure would be required for the Government of the People's Republic of China to agree to sit down with the Tibetan authorities to reach a new agreement that would be even remotely credible and that would stand the test of time?

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

Yes, every small gesture or major initiative will matter. Passing a motion in the Canadian Parliament saying that the one country, two systems of Hong Kong should prevail and that violations of it should be condemned; passing a resolution in the UN Human Rights Council, on Hong Kong; having coordinated efforts with other countries to do similar things in their parliaments, including passing acts in the different governments and executive orders that the one country, two systems in Hong Kong should be upheld—all of these should be recorded so that there's a reference.

When it happened in Tibet in the 1950s, many countries felt the same. They did not support us at the United Nations. Of course, we passed three resolutions; thereafter, they did not. Canadians and all of the governments essentially did not put anything on the record. The more noise you can make, the more resolutions you can pass, the more hearings you can hold, the more opinion pieces you publish in newspapers...will be very helpful.

Eventually, democracy is inevitable. We must push China to embrace democracy, and human rights should be guaranteed. Eventually it will all happen, but for that to happen, coordinated efforts and bilateral efforts to press the Chinese government are very, very important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Bergeron, you have only 15 seconds left.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I believe that it would be unreasonable to continue the discussion with Mr. Sangay in 15 seconds. It would be disrespectful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Okay.

Thank you.

Now we have Mr. Harris for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Sangay, for joining us at this late hour where you are. It's a pleasure to meet you in this way.

I was very interested in your idea of a solution involving dialogue between your organization or the Tibetan people and the Government of China. It seems to me that you're looking at the 17-point agreement, not necessarily as a blueprint but at least as a model that was attempted and agreed upon by both sides. It involved autonomy for Tibet, but it also stipulated that Tibetans recognize Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, etc. That is the model, like the one country, two systems that you talked about, which has been been in Hong Kong since 1997.

The idea that you call the “middle way” seems a direction towards a solution. Is there any support for that? You're suggesting that Canada should perhaps adopt that formally or support that. Is there support for that from other countries at the moment, or is it something that you're working on as part of your ongoing interactions internationally?

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

Thank you very much, Honourable Harris.

Yes. When President Obama met with His Holiness the Dalai Lama in 2014 and 2016, both times the White House issued a press statement supporting the middle-way approach of the Tibetan people. Not only did it support it, but it applauded the middle-way approach.

In the European Parliament also, many of the members have moved motions, and in several countries, 17 or 18 countries, parliamentarians have issued statements as well. In fact, in the Canadian Senate, there is a motion to support the middle-way approach.

The middle-way approach is, essentially, to say that the Chinese government should end the repression of the Tibetan people and guarantee genuine autonomy of the Tibetan people within the framework of the Chinese constitution. Then separation by Tibet would not be sought. That is what we are seeking.

Yes, any kind of motion and statement will help; otherwise, these Chinese officials in Tibet will continue their violation of all kinds of human rights. They act with impunity because no one says anything. Unless you come to support the people in East Turkestan, or Xinjiang, or Hong Kong, Taiwan and Tibet, they act with impunity and think they can get away with it.

Now there is a reassessment of China's policy all over the world, including in Canada. So yes, one must be assertive as far as your principles and values are concerned.

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

Can I ask you another question, which arises from some of the background information we were given? It talks about ethnic Tibetans outside of the Tibet Autonomous Region, which the Government of China recognizes. But there are Tibetans in a number of other provinces, as well. How do they fit into your narrative and your proposed solution of the middle way?

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

Yes, I think they are Tibetans. The traditional definition of Tibet is Ü-Tsang, Kham and Amdo. These are the three traditional provinces of Tibet.

For example, Amdo is mainly the Qinghai and Gansu provinces of China. That's where His Holiness the Dalai Lama was born, which is outside of the Tibet Autonomous Region. My father comes from Kham, which is presently in Sichuan province. To say that Tibet is only the Tibet Autonomous Region is to say that the Dalai Lama is not Tibetan or that my father was not a Tibetan. We all are Tibetans.

What we seek is genuine autonomy and administrative authority over Tibetan people, because they have the same language, the same culture, the same spirituality and even the same terrain. The territory is all a mountainous region; hence, having one administrative structure is more efficient and capable.

Yes, the Chinese government sometimes says, “Oh, what Tibetans are asking for is one fourth of China. This is unreasonable. The Dalai Lama is unreasonable.” No, we are not unreasonable because, historically, that's where Tibetans have lived, and that's where Tibetans are living now. The Dalai Lama is a Tibetan. My late father also was a Tibetan. That's the Tibetan Plateau.

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

There are both, then, the human rights issue, which has to do with the suppression of the culture and the religion, and also this issue of autonomy as it relates to Tibetans in the Tibet Autonomous Region, but also elsewhere.

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

Definitely.

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

That provides some complications, I should think.

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

The human rights situation of Tibetans in the whole of the Tibetan Plateau is the same. Their economic marginalization is similar. The environmental destruction is similar. Even the Chinese government says that the Tibet Autonomous Region and other, adjacent Tibetan areas are all Tibetan autonomous prefectures and Tibetan autonomous counties. The Chinese government also called them “Tibetan autonomous areas”. Essentially, the Chinese government recognized them as the same Tibetan area. It's just that they have called them “Tibetan autonomous areas” and put them in different Chinese provinces.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Harris.