Evidence of meeting #25 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was burton.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I actually wanted to ask our guest something.
A couple of questions ago you ended where I was hoping you wouldn't, and that was on some of the changes you would like to see. You were just touching on them, I think, because you're definitely of the school of engagement, constructively. I'm getting a picture here that instead of our doing it just at the lead level, at the top level, you'd like to see us really look at engaging at a more grassroots level, but it needs to be structured and framed. We can't just send people off and tell them to improve relations.
So I have an open-ended question to you. Could you give us some ideas about what Canada's policy should be, to change what it has been in the past?
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Brock University, As an Individual
My observation is that Canada engages China too much with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and that's not a powerful agency in China. They speak English, so it's easy for our diplomats to contact through that ministry. But the senior-level Communists I've had some contact with—because I went to university in China and I know a lot of people in the higher levels of that party in Beijing—regard the Chinese foreign ministry as interpreters. They don't see them as being in the policy-making area.
I don't want to be too critical about things I'm not familiar with, but it seems to me that we could have handled the Huseyin Celil case differently if we'd been engaging the people who actually had authority over this case, rather than trying to work through a ministry that I don't think has the power to bring about effective change.
So I agree with you. I think we should be engaging Chinese at all levels, not just at the government level but at the people-to-people level. I think we also ought to be engaging the Chinese system.
When Canada functions in the United States, in Washington, we don't just engage at their Department of State. We engage their Congress; we engage the President; we engage all the elements of political power in the United States, because we decided a long time ago, under Mr. Gotlieb, that was the most effective way to function in Washington. We need to have a similar sort of approach to China, because China is a very important place to us, and we could be doing it better.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
There's one point about which I couldn't agree with you more. We have at least a million Chinese-speaking Canadians, and it is puzzling that we don't have more people in the foreign service abroad who can speak Chinese, never mind people who can actually engage on trade and develop our markets abroad. So I think that point is well taken, certainly for me.
Thank you.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Brock University, As an Individual
Our foreign ministry tends to rotate people--they have one posting in China, and then they don't go back there during their whole career--whereas in other foreign ministries, it's a detail; they circulate people in Chinese-speaking places. So they'd have a career that would be the capital, Beijing, as well as Shanghai, their office in Hong Kong, and maybe Taiwan and Singapore. But they could build their careers on this expertise. I think in our ministry it would be a disadvantage to career building if you just focused on the China area. They want to be consul general in Pittsburgh and deputy director of personnel, and maybe go back to China at some stage.
I think we need to be building more expertise to deal with a challenging and complicated place that requires expertise. Dealing in China in English or French is just not going to work anymore.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Lastly, are we doing enough in our post-secondary institutions to develop that kind of talent?
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Brock University, As an Individual
That's an interesting point. My university, Brock University, has over 1,000 students, out of our 17,000 student population, who are self-funded from the People's Republic of China. We're not sending 1,000 students to China to study. So they seem to be taking advantage of us; we don't seem to be taking advantage of them as much.
It's a question of choice, but I wish more Canadians would go into the China field, because I think there's a lot of potential there for young people to really develop very productive careers. But I have a bias on this question.
Conservative
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to attempt to draw a parallel between the comments of Mr. Chan and Mr. Burton.
If I understand correctly, Mr. Chan spoke from the heart in an effort to have us understand that China's Communist and repressive government does not reflect the Chinese people. I have read a lot on China. The Chinese are opened and informed, but have to contend with a host of problems. They lack the confidence needed to move forward and make changes within the government and the Communist Party.
Mr. Burton told the committee that change could be achieved gradually through a series of small gestures and through a comprehensive policy. I understand that this is the message being conveyed by students in China.
While you did say that some judges have requested asylum in Canada, others have chosen to remain in China and to demand change.
I would like us to get something positive out of all this. China might appear to some to be a scary beast—and it likely will become one in a few years' time—, but all is not lost provided we take action on different fronts. We will not effect real change simply by visiting China from time to time and engaging in a dialogue. Only by taking a series of steps will we succeed in getting China to move forward and open up to the world.
Would you agree with me?
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Brock University, As an Individual
I agree with you. You're right, we should be doing a comprehensive, integrated approach to China, using everything that we have in Canada to try to engage that country in the most effective way. It will pay off for us. We put a lot of money into our relationship with China. I'm not proposing a massive increase in funding allocation; it's simply a matter of drawing on resources that we have, but in more effective ways.
China has changed enormously over the past 20 years, but a lot of our Canadian policies have lagged behind. Other countries have brought in more effective programming, and I think we should look to those nations and draw on the vast experience that, say, Australia and Britain have in engaging China and see if this would work for us.
You always want to be catching up and making sure we're keeping up with the trends of the times. There's a certain stagnant nature in bureaucracy that people like you need to shake up and say, “Things aren't going the way they should; review your programming and reallocate that money in ways that will better realize Canadian interests in the country.” I'm happy to hear you share this kind of idea.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. Goldring, did you want to speak? No.
I have a couple of very quick questions.
First of all, you did mention the Huseyin Celil case and that perhaps we could have handled that a little differently, or governments could have handled that differently right from the get-go.
They have denied consular services. They have not allowed us an opportunity to speak with him. They've gone against every international right of at least being able to question Celil. What specifically would we then do differently, just protest the fact that we haven't had consular service? What could we have done differently?
Secondly, we've talked about the lack of a lot of different freedoms—no freedom of expression or association, some of those that have been hampered or stifled—but on the freedom of religion, there is the obvious one in Tibet right now with the monks. There are other ones with the Muslims. It seems to me, because I sat on that committee, there is a Muslim group called Uighurs and also the Christian church. There are probably a lot of other religions there. But I remember seeing a program or a documentary on China just walking in and ripping down a church that people had been worshipping in or meeting in.
What can we do? What should be done? Is it just another place to protest, maybe at the UN?
I noted in the document our clerk circulated today that the human rights records of both Canada and China are scheduled for universal periodic review by the UNHRC in 2009. Is this the only stage for us to voice some of these concerns? Is there an opportunity here in 2009? Should we wait until then? What specifically can be done, especially in the freedom of religion area?
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Brock University, As an Individual
With regard to the Celil case, I wouldn't want to second-guess.... But when I was in Beijing working with the central committee party school, I took advantage of my time to go to the international liaison department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, which is an important foreign policy institution in China. They said that they were very happy to see me, and that they were surprised no one from the Canadian embassy had been to see them for some years. I think Mr. Gordon Houlden has met with them subsequently. We should have contact with these kinds of places, because this is where real policy and real power lies.
With regard to the religion question, they have a state administration for religious affairs that periodically comes to meet with their Canadian counterparts. Well, what is the Canadian counterpart for the state administration for religious affairs? We don't have one, because the government is not deciding what a legitimate religion is or what a cult is and so on.
In general with regard to this question, the Protestant Church is increasing exponentially in China, with over one million new converts a year. More people attend religious services in China on any given Sunday morning than in all of Europe. It has been progressing well. You have to register your religion in China, and the party is bringing more diverse forms of worship into the legal religions. I think the Chinese are coming around to the idea that believers in religion make good citizens, and I think they're less and less repressive of religious beliefs.
That is the situation with Protestants. There are problems with the Catholics, because the Chinese government refuses to acknowledge the role of the Pope. They want God to deal directly with someone inside the boundaries of the People's Republic of China as opposed to the Vatican. That means that most of the Catholics in China are illegal. It varies from time to time and place to place, but people are still able to worship and make their spiritual connection with their Creator.
The situation for the Uighurs is desperate. It's similar to that of the Tibetans. The Chinese government doesn't want to acknowledge that these people have a distinctive language, culture, and history. They speak a language that is intelligible to modern Turkish, and the Chinese government is concerned that in their religious practices in the mosques they're also engaging in the creation of a separate identity. So they have a lot to be concerned about.
Of course we're going to try our best in the Human Rights Council in 2009. It's a new institution. It is as yet untested. We're not sure how it's going to go. In the meantime, I think we have to try to shed light on the situation in China.
The Chinese government is amenable to exposure of wrongdoing. A few years ago when the CTV crew passed a Shanghai police station by coincidence and observed the torture of a prisoner--a prisoner being beaten up and manacled to a window frame--the Chinese government felt ashamed about this. They never say they think torture is okay, that it has served their tradition well for generations, that it's a cultural thing, and so on. They know that there are certain human bottom lines. And in terms of the freedom of religion, I think it's the same.
I think it's incumbent on Canada to not let these things go unanswered. When we become aware of situations, we should speak to our Chinese friends and say, “We've heard about this and we don't think it's right. Don't you think you should be considering doing things differently?” We hope they would agree with us. Why Amnesty International and letters to the Chinese president urging the release of somebody seem to have an impact is a mystery to me, but evidently even the senior leaders of the Chinese Communist Party have some consideration about what Canadians in Saskatoon or Moose Jaw or Grande Prairie think about how they're treating their people. And they do respond.
I do think that shedding some light on these things in a bilateral relationship is a healthy thing. Then we can operate with more authority, in concert with other countries in the UN, to do the same thing.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you.
I noted earlier, though, you stated that what the Chinese hope happens is that you would never speak out against it on the stage, but you would rather deal with it one on one, personally; and then when you do that, they don't listen anyway. That's the frustration we can have in taking that approach.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Brock University, As an Individual
That's why I think we should be honest and transparent in public. The quiet diplomacy route doesn't seem to have worked the way we'd hoped.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Burton.
We're going to suspend for a couple of moments to allow you to leave the chair. We will then go in camera and very briefly take a look at the China report.
[Proceedings continue in camera]