Evidence of meeting #94 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rule.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
I'm sorry, colleagues and Mr. Chen. We're having real audio problems; our interpreters cannot interpret.
Mr. Genuis, can you move to one of the other witnesses, then, until we see what we can do about that?
My apologies.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Chair, I'm going to suggest that we, then, have Mr. Chen back at a later point, once we've resolved those technical issues. I understand the limitations, but I think he's offering some very rare and important testimony. I think it would be worthwhile for us to have him back at a future point for us to be able to pose some of those questions to him.
Mr. Tsering, you talked about the human rights situation impacting Tibet, which is happening within that area occupied by China, obviously. Could you speak a little bit to possible areas of greater Canadian co-operation with the Tibetan government in exile? What is the status of Canada's co-operation on development, on political issues, with the government in exile, and are there areas in which we could recommend that Canada do more, in terms of that relationship?
4:55 p.m.
Representative, Office of Tibet
First of all, I'm really grateful to the Government of Canada for helping with the education project for two years, and then there's another project being submitted again because it was greatly needed and helpful for the exiled Tibetan administration to help the children to learn and be proficient in different languages, including their own language.
The project was funded by the Canadian government for two years and at that time I was also privileged to be in charge of the Department of Education. That was before coming over to the Office of Tibet. Yes, there is another proposal pending with our government and we would really appreciate if that could be considered. Many projects that have been initiated during those two years are still halfway through and it'll be extremely important to, at least, get to the end for the trainees who are in between, and the scholarships that the children were given that are in between, and all the textbooks and other things. A lot of those proposals that were in between could be implemented to the full.
Then, of course, what is happening in Tibet, for instance, is that the Tibetan language itself is under great threat, and right now, they are talking about the Tibetan language itself as a reactionary policy and, therefore, it should be reported to the state, which means there is a threat to whoever is speaking about language. The exiled administration is trying very hard to keep the identity through the separate curriculum enriching the learning of Tibetan language in exile. Those are the areas where, I think, the Canadian government can really help the Tibetan exiles also maintain and keep their identity.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Thank you.
We'll go to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, please. There's just one thing before you start.
Colleagues, just so you know, we can't get Mr. Chen, so we could submit questions to him later, but I think the suggestion of Mr. Genuis to have him back when we have a better audio connection would be the better solution because we can't record this, so we'll have to do it. Unfortunately, we won't be able to ask questions to Mr. Chen.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, what I'll do is this. I will put questions that, I believe, Mr. Chen can just strictly answer yes or no to. I think the translators should be able to differentiate between a yes and a no. I'll keep the questions—
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
I don't think we'll do that, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. We're going to be fair to all the members; we pretty much cut Mr. Genuis off from his questions. We would prefer to have him back, so could you stick to Mr. Tsering and Mr. Matas, please?
April 24th, 2018 / 5 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Okay. In that case, I'll turn to Mr. Matas.
Mr. Matas, you and Mr. Kilgour wrote a well-documented exposé that, basically, opened up the cover on what was an incredibly big business operation that involved human body parts and organs in China.
Could you give us an idea of the scale of this operation in terms of human lives lost and also monetary value to the Chinese state? As I understand it, this business was being operated out of largely army-run hospitals.
5 p.m.
As an Individual
Of course, the Chinese government doesn't publish statistics about this. It does produce statistics about organ donation volumes, and it does produce statistics about sources, but as far as I can see, they're just made-up figures. They don't match what we're able to determine through research.
We would go to individual hospitals and add up what the hospitals say they're doing in volumes, and it has no correlation with what the Chinese government says are the total volumes. They are continually covering up data streams when we identify them.
Our estimation in the update of June 2016 was that there are about 100,000 transplants a year. We went through a period where it was less, about 60,000, and then it went up to about 100,000. We got those figures in a number of different ways. We were looking, as I said, at hospital websites, but also at hospital newsletters, media reports, the bed counts, and so on.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Because we have limited time, could you provide an approximation of the number of lives lost due to this business, and also just an approximation—I know it's a difficult thing, especially in the environment in which China operates—of the monetary value?
5:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Again, with regard to monetary value, we're dealing with price lists, which at one time were posted, but then were taken down when we quoted them. That was 12 years ago, so the prices, presumably, have gone up since then. There are negotiations now at various hospitals about a price list rather than an official posted price list. My estimate would be around $8 billion a year in terms of total dollar value.
In terms of lives lost, 100,000 is the figure for organs, not people. However, there isn't an effective organ distribution system, and there's a lot of organ wastage in China, so the lives lost would be close to it. They're not all prisoners of conscience. There are other sources, but they're small compared with prisoners of conscience.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Let's make this absolutely clear. There are price lists for human organs and body parts. It's a business operation. They're treating the body parts and organs of human beings like commodities. The price goes up and down, depending on supply, and it gets negotiated.
5:05 p.m.
As an Individual
They have so many prisoners of conscience in arbitrary detention that the supply is infinite. In terms of the way they can operate, the constraints on the system have been beds and staff, but not organ supplies. What you've seen in China since they started sourcing for organs is a building boom in transplant facilities to take advantage of this seemingly inexhaustible supply of organs.
It's true that people are treated.... They are depersonalized and treated as body parts. This is a consequence of the invective, the incitement, the hatred, against these target groups that basically leads the jailers to treat them as non-persons.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Let's follow that train of thought. You have state capitalism, which cannibalizes the body parts of prisoners of conscience and others. That's worth billions of dollars. You have price lists. It's something that just seems so incomprehensible, yet it's clear that this business has been directed by the central authorities. Is that correct or not? Is it at all possible that they would have no idea of this potentially $8-billion business?
5:05 p.m.
As an Individual
No. There's what I would call a lot of “willful blindness”.
The voice of the Chinese transplant system in China is Huang Jiefu. There's a transcript of an interview where he says that he once went to see what was going on with this—the sourcing authorities, because the extraction team is different from the insertion team—and he was so disgusted and shocked that he never went back again.
There's a lot of compartmentalization in the transplantation system, so people pretend not to know. However, as far as I'm concerned, they're turning a blind eye to abuse.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I have, perhaps, a final question.
Waiting for organs is emotionally draining. People are desperate. In terms of Canadians who would have engaged in having body parts or organs transplanted in China, are they aware of the fact that other people are paying with their lives? What can we do to raise awareness?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Thank you, Mr. Matas. Just hang on to that, because I think we'll have a chance to let you answer that question as we go.
I want to go Ms. Laverdière.
You can re-ask that question if you like. I'm just trying to stick to the time, otherwise we will have to leave.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would first like to thank our three witnesses who came to talk to us about extremely important issues. I think we can also receive additional information in writing. That might be useful. As I was saying, I think these are three extremely important issues.
That being said, and since time is running out, we have to talk about the United Church of Canada's request to meet with this committee on Thursday, along with Michael Lynk, the UN special rapporteur, to talk about what Canada could do to promote peace in the Middle East, which I think is a very important issue. I clearly support the request.
Since time is very short and we have to talk about this today to be able to receive them on Thursday, I'm ready to give up my time, while sincerely thanking our three witnesses, so that the committee can make a decision on this request.
Thank you.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Thank you very much, Ms. Laverdière.
There is still time for Mr. Sidhu. I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Sidhu for five minutes, then we'll go in camera and deal with the issue that Ms. Laverdière is speaking of.
Mr. Sidhu, the floor is yours.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jati Sidhu Liberal Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, all three, for your testimony today.
It's too bad we don't have Mr. Chen here, because I had a question on Taiwan.
I had the opportunity to travel to Taiwan with other parliamentarians. Although this committee won't have a chance to go to Taiwan, we're looking to have a trade agreement with China. At the same time, Taiwan is a rapidly growing economy. They're number 25 after the G20 countries. If there is a chance to expand the 20 to 25, they would be in that.
At the same time, China says that it's one country. Maybe, Mr. Tsering, you have insight or a comment on how to do business with Taiwan without China's input.
5:10 p.m.
Representative, Office of Tibet
If it is a question for me, I didn't understand it properly.
Can you repeat that, sir?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jati Sidhu Liberal Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
How do we do business with Taiwan? They claim themselves an independent, fast-growing economy in the world, number 25 in the world. At the same time, China is claiming there's only one China. Do we have any chance in the future to do business with Taiwan? We are looking to explore opportunities in Asia.
That's the question.
5:10 p.m.
Representative, Office of Tibet
I think yes, if you follow what the United States has done so far. They have actually passed a Taiwan Travel Act through which a new scope of co-operation with Taiwan has opened up. I think it depends on Canada, how it handles the situation; and I guess, for China, it's the three core issues, which is what they normally call the three “Ts”: Tibet, Taiwan, and Tiananmen Square. That also is one way for Canada to see how it would like to do it. I cannot say so much on this but I think there definitely is a way.
I would go back a bit on what the previous MP, the Honourable Garnett Genuis, asked me about how Canada can help the Central Tibetan Administration, the exiled administration. I think there are other ways also, like supporting the middle way approach of the Central Tibetan Administration, and also by passing resolutions to send delegations to Tibet, even including Sichuan, to see how the situation is there. I'd also like to thank the foreign affairs minister of Canada for talking about the human rights situation. She said they would like to continue working to help the Tibetans.
These are some of the things. Also, another thing would be to send a Canadian parliamentary delegation to Dharamsala. That's where the Central Tibetan Administration is situated. There are a lot of things that the Government of Canada can really do for Tibet. Originally, when you hear in the United States....
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Thank you very much, Mr. Tsering.
For the committee's information, there is a delegation coming from Tibet on May 8, that wants to meet with this committee. So, in fact, we will have an opportunity to have that kind of conversation.
Colleagues, I want to say thank you to all three witnesses. We appreciate very much your patience and understanding. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place, as they say, because we have a vote coming up and we have some business that we need to do.
I want to suspend this meeting and go in camera for discussion of Madame Laverdière's issue. I'll ask everyone to clear the room and we'll try to do this in five minutes.
Just a reminder that on Thursday we have an hour for committee business to look at the future business, because we'll spend one hour on starting to deal with the report, and the second hour, if it takes that long, to have some vigorous debate about where we're going, what we're doing, and what we'd like to do. Hopefully it won't take an hour so that Thursday we'll end a little early, which is always a good thing on Thursday.
So let's just suspend for two minutes, we'll clear the room, and and then we'll get right into it.
Madame Laverdière.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Chair, I think it would be good if the rest of the meeting and this decision were public.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Yes, I appreciate that this would be your position, but it's generally the committee's view, and we've been following that, that future business is done in camera. We'll stick to what we've been doing all along.
Those of you who don't belong here necessarily, please leave the room.
[Proceedings continue in camera]