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

[Dominic Barton]

Thank you for the question on Hong Kong.

It's actually been very much front and centre. You heard from Jeff Nankivell, the consul general who, from the government side, plays the key role in there, but we démarche the government here all the time. It's quite intense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Harris.

Now we go to Mr. Genuis for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ambassador, Canada's ambassador to the United Nations, Bob Rae, recently said, “There's no question that there's aspects of what the Chinese are doing that fits into the definition of genocide in the genocide convention.”

Do you agree with Mr. Rae's assessment?

[Dominic Barton]

Thanks for the question on that.

I fully agree with what Ambassador Rae said in raising the concerns and issues. He also mentioned the need, and the part I would focus on, for us to get independent reports to understand what's happening. We have the reports. They sound very concerning. We need to ensure that we have independent people on the ground who can go wherever they want to find out.

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

Ambassador, on that part of his comments, I'm not convinced it's realistic that that is going to happen any time soon. He made a statement, though, and I just want to zero in and be clear on your response, because it sounded like you said you agreed, but I'm not entirely clear. He said, “There's no question that there's aspects of what the Chinese are doing that fits into the definition of genocide in the genocide convention.” That's a direct quote.

Do you agree with that direct quote?

[Dominic Barton]

My view is that I think we need to see the reports. I haven't talked to Ambassador Rae about the particular evidence he has on that side. The key thing is getting the reports. It's worrying enough, all of the satellite imagery and so forth. We know where we need to look, so let's go and get it and look at it. I would be for our getting the information. The reports are very concerning.

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

Ambassador, obviously everybody is concerned. We have two different ambassadors, our ambassador in Beijing and our ambassador in New York. Mr. Rae is saying there's no question there are aspects that fit into the definition of genocide, and you're saying that investigation is continuing.

I guess I'd like to ask on that basis, is Mr. Rae's statement consistent with the government's policy, or is your statement that we need to do more investigation before we can use that terminology consistent with government policy? Who's reflecting the views of the government?

[Dominic Barton]

To focus on your question, I would go to what the government is saying and the minister is saying, which is that he is pushing for a report. He's gone to the human rights commissioner, Michelle Bachelet, saying, “We need to get in there, and you need to go and see what's happening.” Bob Rae has been very much involved in the UN vote with 38 other countries to express concern and also to get access. They are focusing on getting immediate unfettered access.

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

It's the same with Tibet. We'd love to get access, but I think there are realities in terms of what's going to be given.

Ambassador, I would like to follow up on a couple of questions in terms of the follow-up disclosure that you had committed to in February. I don't want to belabour any of these points, but you had said at the time you had expressed an openness to disclosing information about the Chinese state-owned company that you did work for with McKinsey.

Also, in response to a question from my colleague Dan Albas, you had expressed a willingness to provide disclosures in terms of meetings that you had with Huawei officials.

As far as I know, the committee has not received any of those follow-up points of disclosure. Do you want to update us on whether you are prepared to provide that follow-up disclosure either on Chinese state-owned companies that you did work for at McKinsey or on Huawei officials you've met with?

[Dominic Barton]

On the disclosure with SOEs, as I mentioned in the last committee hearing, I'm comfortable with that. I think what has to happen is to work through the McKinsey legal counsel to make sure they've worked through it. We connected the committee with that individual and there was a process that was under way. That's where it needs to be done. On my part, I'm comfortable. I think that has to be worked through with McKinsey, and as far as I know that was put forward. I don't know where we are on that, but the committee can follow up with them on it.

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

It sounds like we may need to follow up with the chair, then, because we're all looking for that information.

Finally, just in the time I have left, Ambassador, a lot of discussion recently has been out there about the guilty plea from Purdue pharmaceuticals, and the role that McKinsey played advising Purdue at the time when you were leading McKinsey. It stands to reason that this controversy could have an impact on your role as ambassador.

I wonder if you have any comments at all on the current controversies around Purdue pharmaceuticals as they relate to McKinsey during the time when you were leading McKinsey.

[Dominic Barton]

I would suggest strongly that you look at the statement on the McKinsey website, which is quite detailed and clear about how they feel about what's happened. That's what I would strongly recommend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Genuis.

Now we'll go to Ms. Yip for five minutes, please.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you for coming so early in the morning for you.

I'm happy to bring the discussion back to Tibet.

In August, Dr. Lobsang Sangay suggested that the security laws in Tibet not only undermine democratic values and freedom of speech but also contribute to the environmental destruction of the Tibetan plateau and the economic marginalization of the Tibetan people. He further noted that the Chinese government should be held accountable.

What are the principal concerns related to the environmental destruction in Tibet?

[Dominic Barton]

As I mentioned, the environmental theme was an important one. What we focused on was this Lhalu wetlands area, which is in Lhasa. Obviously the Tibet Autonomous Region is a huge area.

One area that we would have for concern is mining. There's lithium mining that's been done. We've heard reports of poison in the waters. We didn't get to see any of the mining activity. There are some hydro dams that have been built or are being seen to be built. That also can have an effect on the environment.

I think, as China itself calls it, this is the third pole; the water tower provides the water for 1.4 billion people. Understanding the ecology and the environmental impact on the broader plane would be good. When we asked that question, what the official said was that they have, I think, 34% of the land area now in natural reserve. They have 47 natural reserves that are out there. I think the point is that we didn't get to see them. I think, again, we need to get access and have experts have access to be able to go and look at what's happening. Clearly China's saying it's a priority, but it would be good to be able to see it. Therefore, access, I think, is critical.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

In your opening statement, you mentioned a decline in civil rights in China. Can you explain this dynamic that we're seeing in China where, with growing prosperity, there is also a decline in civil rights?

[Dominic Barton]

Yes, there's no question, again, that material prosperity has grown significantly and continues to grow on pretty well all measures. I think the point I was trying to make is that, on the civil liberties side, it feels very different from the time I was here in the first part of the century, 2003 to 2009, and I think it's even changed over the last five years.

People are more careful what they talk about. It's risky to have a dissenting view. I guess I want to say it's a feeling. It's a hard thing to say X, Y or Z has happened. There are many newspapers, media channels, social media and so forth, but I think people just feel more reluctant to have open conversations about any issues they're concerned about, and in any society there are going to be issues, even if it's performing well from a material point of view.

I don't know if I'm getting at your question, but it feels tighter, more constrained.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I'm sure the increase in the number of cameras all around is probably contributing to that feeling.

Also, in that time frame, did you notice more control of the press and less openness?

[Dominic Barton]

I think the press has not changed a lot. There are always the headlines talking about what China's doing well. I would say one thing I have noticed is that there's usually a report on the president, which wasn't as much as I saw when I was here before. Every day it says that President Xi has done X, Y or Z, that type of thing. That's one difference.

I think WeChat people want to be careful what they say, because they don't know if they're being monitored. That said, I think it has to be done in very small groups with people you trust. There are people who will talk about it or send articles. You can get VPN access. I can get to Google. It has to change all the time. It's not reliable, but it's not as though people are here in the dark in terms of what's going on in the rest of the world. They can sort of see that, but it is just more constrained.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Ms. Yip.

Now we're on to a subsequent round with Mr. Chong for five minutes.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ambassador, for appearing in front of our committee.

You were in Lhasa, you mentioned, which is on the Lhasa River, which feeds into the Yarlung Tsangpo River. I assume you know that recently China has proposed a series of megadams on that river, which feeds into India. These dams are significant in their proposition. They would be three times the size of the Three Gorges Dam.

You were just about 50 kilometres north of that river in Lhasa.

The first question I have is, did you ask officials any questions about those proposed megaprojects?

[Dominic Barton]

Mr. Chair, we also were aware of the reports of this dam and of its significant impact not just on the environment, but what impact it also may have downstream particularly for India, because I think it's the source of the Brahmaputra River.

We asked the question, and the view was, “We take the environment very carefully. We're very concerned about it, and we have to be concerned about our own water systems in China from this. You can't differentiate.” That was their response. We didn't get to see.... Again, we were too far away to be able to see it, so we asked the question.

The other thing we asked was, “Why do you have so many hydro dams here, when there isn't exactly a big industrial state? Where does the power go? Why are you building these things? Why aren't you using solar or other devices?”

I don't know whether I'm answering your question, but that's the extent of it.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Questions were asked, then.

Were questions asked about the recent clashes between Indian and Chinese forces in the Himalayas, which we saw about six months ago, and the rising tension between India and China in that region?

[Dominic Barton]

Those questions were asked when we were on the bus. What I heard was that during the previous visit of ambassadors, a military convoy went through. Again, I didn't see it; it was just reported to me. We didn't see that. We had our eyes wide open for it.

The infrastructure in Tibet is pretty phenomenal—the highways, the railroads and so forth. We asked about it. The response was, “We're here to talk about Tibet, not the border dispute.”

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Okay.

Have you had any discussions with the Indian ambassador to China about these issues, particularly what you saw in Tibet?