Canada-China Relations Committee on Dec. 8th, 2020

[Dominic Barton]

Yes. I think it's looking at what is happening on a case-by-case basis. We're not members of the belt and road initiative. We don't have a port being set up that way under those auspices.

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

Ambassador, we're not members of the BRI, but we are members of the AIIB. Hundreds of millions of Canadian tax dollars have gone into that, and of course, people on maybe the government side of the debate like to suggest that there is some distinction, but the AIIB exists to achieve the same strategic objectives as the BRI. Isn't that correct?

[Dominic Barton]

It's not correct; I don't believe that.

I think our position with AIIB is very deliberate. It's a multilateral organization with multilateral governance. We're one of 12 board members in it. I think our involvement in it is quite important, because we can ensure that the right ESG standards...that there is no suasion there. It's a very good governance approach, with others.

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

Ambassador, I completely disagree with you on that, but I'd like to get one more follow-up question in just briefly, on the issue of Purdue.

You've referred to McKinsey's statement. McKinsey actually issued an apology relating to its role in OxyContin promotion. You had been leading McKinsey at the time. Do you agree with that apology? Do you wish to apologize yourself? What are your reflections and response to that apology?

[Dominic Barton]

Mr. Chair, what I would say on that is, the member should read the statement in full. He's reading a very small part of what that statement was about, and I don't think that's a very fair representation.

I would encourage you to speak to the McKinsey leadership in terms of what's happening on that front, to get the full picture, but you're just parsing it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

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

It was reported—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Thank you, Your Excellency.

We'll now go to Mr. Fragiskatos for six minutes, please.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I promise to stay on the topic at hand entirely here, unlike some who have decided to waver off in different directions. Let's put it that way. I'll also be giving a few minutes to Mr. Zuberi, who is joining us tonight, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Barton, this question is similar to one that was posed by Mr. Virani earlier, but I want to ask it in a different light.

It's often the case that—and I am not just talking about Canada in specific terms here—liberal democracies will take an interest in a particular issue at a particular moment. It could be the case that the government of the day has an interest in that issue. It could be the case that an ambassador has a particular interest in that issue, and there could be all sorts of other variables that explain why a matter has become a subject of concern for a country.

My question is, how do we maintain an interest in Tibet? What will you do to continue to work on this issue?

I don't want it to be the case that we look 10 years down the road and there is no continued engagement. I wonder what you could say to that. Will you continue to work on this matter?

[Dominic Barton]

Mr. Chair, I very much will be continuing to work on it. In fact, I would say that it's due to the work of previous ambassadors and governments that we actually got this visit. Since 2015 we've been asking for it. I've only been here for a year and a few months, so it's due to the hard work of others and pushing for this before, which we continue. To me, it's passing the baton, if you will.

I happen to be here to be able to do that visit, and we just need to keep pushing that. I think it's actually been very consistent from what I can see. I read all the reports of what has been done on various different TAR trips and in the other provinces where there are Tibetan populations. It's a very consistent, deliberate approach, so I think we have been doing that.

I fully agree with your point. We have to continue to do that irrespective of any changes that are going on. I think it will help with China to know that this is a consistent view. This is not depending on the government of the day or the ambassador who happens to be here; it is core. I definitely feel that.

Again, as I said, I've benefited from work that's been done before. It was those continual pushes to say, “We want to go. We want to be there. We need to see it.” We'll continue to broaden and build that.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

In your earlier testimony, when I asked you a question about the sorts of issues that you've been putting forward as an ambassador of a middle-power country, I was quite intrigued by the response. You said that there are things to put on the table as an ambassador, learning from the experience of Canada and applying that as part of the way to engage.

Which critical issues do you think Canada can exert itself on in light of our own experience in this country so that we can be most helpful to those in Tibet?

[Dominic Barton]

I think there are a lot of areas, and I won't be able to be as comprehensive as I should be.

Some things that stand out, again, are that we are multicultural. If I think again about Quebec and the role and the importance of French, we are truly a bilingual country, and it's important. That is something that people look at and respect, I think, a great deal.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[Dominic Barton]

I don't think our treatment of the aboriginal people is something we're proud of at all. It was done very badly, and I think we should have some humility when we talk about it. That's why I'm saying that even with moving people from regions, how much choice did they actually have? What are the schools like?

We come from a place of knowing how that part was not done well. I think we need to have some humility on that side, to say that we do not want to do what happened there. I think there is quite some force to that.

Those are just two of probably many elements.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Ambassador. I really don't want to interrupt; you're on a line of thinking that I find extremely interesting. Mr. Zuberi did ask for some of my time, however, so I'll give the rest of the time to him.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I want to thank Peter for that.

Ambassador Barton, thank you for being with us and for your very important work around Tibet. Thanks also for continuing to engage with the region. We hope to hear more from you in the future.

I'm going to shift gears for a moment and pick up on what some of my colleagues in this committee have touched upon, which is about the Uighur people.

First, allusion was made to one of our parliamentary subcommittees having come to a determination that there is an unfolding genocide within the Uighur Autonomous Region, Xinjiang. We found, after hearing two full days of expert testimony, that between one million and three million people are being subjected to what China says are re-education camps but what we found are concentration camps.

You said that there's no daylight between you and Bob Rae, which we know. The question is, would you—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I'm sorry, Mr. Zuberi. I appreciate Mr. Fragiskatos' kindness in giving you some time—not quite enough, perhaps, for the question.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

No worries; that's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you for joining us.

I'm sorry about that.

We will now continue with Mr. Bergeron for six minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Perhaps I could allow the ambassador to address this question first.

It was my intention to ask His Excellency if he had heard anything about the subcommittee's report recognizing what is happening in Xinjiang as genocide and whether he had also heard about the petition tabled in the House of Commons on October 6, asking the Canadian government to apply the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, known as the Sergei Magnitsky Law, to the corrupt leaders responsible for the persecutions in China.

[Dominic Barton]

On the Xinjiang side, I've looked at the reports you are putting forward. I also said that we're very concerned with the reports that are coming out from Xinjiang, whether on forced labour, detention or concentration-type camps. We're calling consistently on China to allow access to independent people in order to understand what is happening.

That's the message we're pushing and are following, under the guidance of the minister. I think pushing for this through every international organization we can and through doing it ourselves in communication with the Chinese officials is essential. It's about getting access to be able to understand exactly what is happening. That's what we are pushing.

On the Magnitsky proposal, I know there have been some motions in the Senate and broadly in Parliament on it. I would very much concur with what the minister said, that we look at the full range of policy options. The important thing, however, is that we do things in a coordinated manner, that we coordinate with the like-minded to be able to have the impact we need.

From my own personal point of view, voice is important, and standing up for things is critical, but having influence is another aspect that we have to look at. What are we going to be able to actually change in the behaviours?

I don't know whether I'm getting at your question.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

First, I would like to thank you. Some of my colleagues have thanked you several times for being with us tonight, but there's a 12-hour time difference, so you're with us very early in the morning. We very much appreciate it.

I'd like to ask you a very simple question. As you understand it, does the national security law apply only to the situation in Hong Kong or does it apply throughout the People's Republic of China?

[Dominic Barton]

Mr. Chair, on the national security law, obviously the main concern we have is that it is being applied in Hong Kong without any discussion or formal process within Hong Kong, which contravenes the one country, two systems principle in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which was signed in 1984. It breaks an agreement, and as a country that needs to work in a global rules-based system; it needs to follow the agreements that it has signed.

What's particularly concerning is that article 55, I think it is, allows the security people on the mainland to go into Hong Kong to arrest people or detain people. That's what's particularly concerning. Already on the mainland, in all of the provinces and autonomous regions, there is a national security law. That's not different. I think the concern is that it is being applied to Hong Kong. It's also the way in which it was put in place, which is what we find concerning and what we've registered multiple times.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I appreciate this clarification. I think it is very timely in the context of Hong Kong.

I was asking this question because it can lead to excesses—so to speak—in other parts of China, including Tibet. Could that worry you? We see it, for example, in Xinjiang. We might wonder whether there is differential treatment of religious minorities in China, such as the Uyghurs, Falun Gong and Buddhists, or whether we can expect similar treatment for other religious minorities, such as the Buddhists in Tibet, for example.

[Dominic Barton]

Mr. Chair, it's a great question.

I would say that is already happening, I think. That system whereby the security can come into whatever religious group or rights group or whatever...they can do that already in the system, so that's part of how it feels as though China is changing. The ability to do that is already there. What we're concerned about is it shifting to Hong Kong.