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

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number six of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. Pursuant to the motion adopted on Wednesday, September 23, the committee is meeting on its study of Canada-China relations.

Today's meeting is being held in a hybrid format, in keeping with the motion passed by the House on September 23. The meeting is also being televised. It will be available on the House of Commons website.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of “floor”, “English” or “French”.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are participating by video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself.

The witness, who I think has probably appeared at committees before, will know that when one of the members is asking him questions, he doesn't have to wait for me to recognize him. He can go ahead and answer the question.

I want to remind you that committee members and witnesses should address all comments to the chair. Please speak slowly and clearly.

When you are not speaking, your microphone should be on mute.

I will now welcome Mr. Shawn Steil, executive director, greater China policy and coordination, from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, to speak to us.

Thank you very much for being here. Please proceed with your five-minute opening remarks.

[Shawn Steil, Executive Director, Greater China Policy and Coordination, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the committee on the subject of Tibet today.

First, permit me a disclaimer: the committee has asked to hear from an expert on Tibet from Global Affairs Canada. Unfortunately, the limited access Canadian officials have to the Tibet Autonomous Region in China means that few officials have first-hand experience with the situation in Tibet.

Access to Tibet remains strictly controlled by the Chinese government, and on the rare occasions when official visits are allowed, they are highly scripted. In recent years, Tibet’s central government has made it more difficult for diplomats, journalists and foreigners overall to visit. A travel permit and an invitation are necessary. Canada consistently and frequently requests visits to the Tibet Autonomous Region. Permits to visit Tibetan regions in other Chinese provinces are not required, but those visits can also be heavily restricted.

This session is particularly timely. Canada’s ambassador to China, Dominic Barton, just returned from a visit to the Tibetan capital of Lhasa and nearby Shannan prefecture, at the invitation of the Chinese government. The trip was with a group of other diplomats and took place from October 26 to 30. This was the first visit by a Canadian official since 2015.

The lack of meaningful access to Tibet is one aspect of severe restrictions imposed by Chinese authorities on the Tibetan people. The Government of Canada remains deeply concerned about the human rights situation affecting Tibetans. In line with reports such as those by NGOs and by the UN Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination, human rights issues include restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief and the protection of linguistic and cultural rights.

We maintain engagement with members of the Tibetan diaspora, including Tibetan Canadians, and with organizations that study and conduct and support the Tibetan community abroad. Contact with this community remains important to the Government of Canada and informs our approach to advocacy for rights and freedoms in Tibet.

Canada bestowed honorary Canadian citizenship on Tibetan spiritual leader His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama in 2006. While we know there are longstanding grievances between the Chinese government and the Central Tibetan Administration or government-in-exile and His Holiness, Canada supports meaningful dialogue between these parties toward a resolution of issues acceptable to both sides.

Tensions between the Chinese government and Tibetans have remained high and ongoing over several decades, and the last 10 years present no exception. The government has continued to intensify its crackdown on Tibetans with increased surveillance and forced patriotic education. Acts of protest by Tibetans can result in detention or worse. To the world’s horror, there have been more than 150 self-immolations by Tibetan Buddhists during this period.

Canada has a long history of support for Tibetans. The government began work to resettle some of the first Tibetan refugees to Canada in the 1970s. There have certainly been more immigrants and refugees since that time.

Within the last decade, the Government of Canada has established special measures to facilitate the private sponsorship and emigration of up to 1,000 displaced Tibetans from India. Individuals were matched with sponsors through Project Tibet Society, with the resettlement of 1,000 refugees completed in 2017.

These Tibetans and more than 7,000 others—in fact, according to the 2016 census there were more than 8,000 Canadians identifying as Tibetan—are contributing to our country’s multicultural fabric, including through participation in public life.

In line with diplomatic relations, Canada recognizes the People’s Republic of China as the governing body of the Tibet Autonomous Region. In line with China’s own constitutions and its international obligations, we call on the government to respect religious freedoms and end repressive policies in Tibet. While there is economic development in Tibet, it does not mask the need for the protection of political and civil rights.

Canada will continue to ask for unhindered access to the region, especially in light of the recent crackdowns. Although there is increased attention being paid to the crackdown in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, we must not forget that the situation in Tibet remains very serious.

I thank the committee for raising this issue tonight.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Steil.

Now we'll go to our first round of questions, led off by Mr. Williamson for six minutes.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for appearing tonight. You paint a rather bleak picture of the situation in Tibet, not only for the people of Tibet but also for our government's ability to monitor, participate and get a sense of what's happening on the ground there.

In August, this committee heard from Dr. Lobsang Sangay, who is the president of the...I'll refer to them as Tibetans abroad or the Tibetan diaspora outside of the territory. He talked about the middle-way approach as a way to perhaps reconcile his people's way of life within mainland China. It was to seek a “genuine autonomy" for the Tibetan people "within the framework of the Chinese constitution”.

Could you talk a little about the Government of Canada's position on this middle-way approach and any work that's been done to facilitate it or to move it forward?

[Shawn Steil]

I'm very much aware of the Central Tibetan Administration's proposal for a middle-way approach. It's one that we understand sets aside questions of independence, but rather seeks greater autonomy within China. I would just underline that from Canadian policy, we recognize that the People's Republic of China is the governing body over the Tibet Autonomous Region.

We don't take a particular position on the middle-way approach but have consistently advocated for the Government of China to engage in meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama and his representatives in the Central Tibetan Administration. We haven't taken a position on the content of that dialogue, but certainly we recognize that the middle-way approach does refute the complaint that we often hear from the Chinese government that the Dalai Lama and his “clique” are separatists and troublemakers trying to split the country. If they were listening to what Lobsang Sangay and others are saying about the middle-way approach, they would recognize that splitting the country is not what they're looking for.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Right. I think that's it.

It seems that Canada's policy towards Tibet really hasn't changed very much since the Mulroney government. It has been an acknowledgement or recognition that Tibet is part of mainland China. Is that accurate or am I missing something? Has there been an evolution in the view of the Tibetan region in that time or has there been a pretty consistent policy as I have just described?

[Shawn Steil]

Mr. Chair, I think that's quite accurate. I don't think there's been a significant shift in Canada's policy approach over time. I may be called out by the Chinese government for speaking harshly about our position on that, but it's not the Canadian government policy so much that has changed over time; it's the People's Republic of China's policy that's changed over time. We've seen an increasing crackdown and limiting of rights.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I think that's exactly it. Whether it's a failure to live up to its side of the bargain, which of course we've seen more and more, not just in Tibet but elsewhere.... In fact in a July 7, 2020 interview with Agence France-Presse, Dr. Sangay compared China's failure to uphold the 17-point agreement with Tibet to the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong. He warned that, “What you see [in Hong Kong] already took place in Tibet”.

What do you think are the parallels between Tibet and China's other autonomous regions?

[Shawn Steil]

I think the trend lines that we've seen in Tibet have been shown in other regions of China as well. You mentioned some of the history there.

Even in more recent history—I could say since 2008—there has been a violent crackdown on protests, followed over the last decade by much harsher mechanisms of control and surveillance in Tibet. Some of the patterns of those mechanisms of control we're now seeing reproduced in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, for example. It really comes out to less and less space for opposition to the Communist Party.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

You have only five seconds, Mr. Williamson.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I'll just make a comment. I was in Tibet in 2007 and I got a first-hand taste of just how complete the Chinese control of the media is there. I was talking with many Tibetans who look for news. The young generation I had spoken to there had no knowledge of, no information about, the Tiananmen Square massacre, which shocked me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Williamson.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I think we're all interested in hearing that story, but I shouldn't have let you go beyond six minutes. I hope members will forgive me for that.

I'll go on now to Mr. Fragiskatos for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to Mr. Steil for his testimony tonight.

Mr. Steil, could you share with the committee a little bit more about the ambassador's recent trip in Tibet and what exactly he did?

[Shawn Steil]

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to give the broad strokes of the visit. The ambassador, of course, would be better placed to go into some of the details and nuances of it.

As I mentioned, we've been campaigning with the Chinese authorities very consistently for a visit, and his was the first in five years of any Canadian diplomat. I think for the previous ambassador it was even longer than that, perhaps in 2013.

His visit was with a group of other diplomats. It followed a previous visit of other ambassadors. Other countries' visits have also been restricted, but there was an earlier visit of diplomats and ambassadors from other countries in September. I believe this was the second visit in a relatively short succession.

He travelled primarily to Lhasa, the capital, but was also able to see parts of the surrounding prefecture of Shannan. He was able to visit the monastery, a school, and to meet with senior officials of the Tibetan government and visit some of the regions outside of Lhasa. But again, it was a highly scripted visit.

I think it did afford him the opportunity to make some personal observations, with the limited free time he had to make contact with ordinary Tibetans. That, I think, is of tremendous value for us. I think we're always concerned about, as we say, the instrumentalization of these visits—being used for propaganda purposes and these sorts of things—but you balance that out with the rare opportunity for first-hand observation, and also with the very important opportunity for Canada and its government to show Tibetans that we're there and we care, just by his presence there.

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

Thank you. It was a rare opportunity indeed.

Do you think this committee would benefit, Mr. Steil, from having the ambassador appear, testify and share information and take questions on the recent visit to Tibet?

[Shawn Steil]

Yes, absolutely. I had the chance to be briefed very briefly by him as well. I think the nuances and the observations he would be able to provide on his visit would be very helpful, especially given that these visits are so rare.

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

Thank you very much.

This is the other question I want to ask, Mr. Steil. How does Canada's approach to the Tibetan question compare and contrast to the approach taken by other middle-power democracies, whether Australia, New Zealand or the U.K.? I won't fill in all the examples of middle powers that we could point to, but could you offer any thoughts on that question?

[Shawn Steil]

Sure. I think our position is quite similar. I should note that it's increasingly coordinated. We have the opportunity at a working level and at higher levels, all the way up to the minister, to engage with our like-minded democracies on some of these critical issues, to ensure that we're not missing important parts of our approach and our advocacy, and where we can, to coordinate that advocacy.

Of course, we're also not alone in suffering some of the consequences for that advocacy. I think there would be a long list of, as you say, middle powers and friendly democracies that have been punished at one time or another for permitting the Dalai Lama to visit, for example. I think many of us have been through periods where we've suffered the wrath of the Chinese government for engaging with Tibet.

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

I have a final question, Mr. Steil.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I see that I have a couple of minutes.

This is a more general question regarding China's approach to Tibet. I know from other conflicts.... I'm not well-versed in this conflict, I must admit, so thank you to the analysts at the Library of Parliament for their always very learned analysis. I've relied on it.

I do know from a conflict that I have studied in the past, the Kurdish question, that one of the ways in which Turkey, Iraq and Iran integrated Kurdish dissidents into the state structure was to appoint them to high-level positions of authority. Is that something the Chinese state has also done to sort of dissipate dissent within Tibet and among Tibetans?

[Shawn Steil]

Yes, I think that's probably a fair assessment in this case. In fact, I listened to Lobsang Sangay's testimony before the committee as well, and I know that's a point he's drawn. The co-option of the elite can be a factor.

In the People's Republic of China politically overall, I think that there are very, very few Tibetans who make it to high-level positions within that system, but certainly within the Tibet Autonomous Region you see a mix of ethnic Han and ethnic Tibetan leaders within the political system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

You have 15 seconds.

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

I was just simply going to thank the witness very much.

I've had the chance to engage with him on other issues relating to Canada's foreign policy in previous meetings at the committee level, Mr. Chair. We're very fortunate to have him here tonight.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

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