Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I think Kevin expired the clock there. Sorry.

I'd like to pass the word over to Mr. Marston.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I should stress that I'm new to the committee and new to Parliament as well, but one thing that strikes me is that Canada's engagement on human rights in China has taken a back seat to trade imperatives. I'm concerned about that.

I listened to your comments earlier about civil society groups and bypassing the regime. More recently, you spoke about how other countries tend to be encouraging that. Are we in a position to put some people at risk if we do that?

Second, I've stated among my caucus for a while that the Olympics offer an opportunity to influence that we're not going to see in several generations. Perhaps you might have some recommendations as to how we could move forward on that. One of the things I would believe is that if we brought the sponsors and the IOC before this committee, it might be a place to plant some seeds and it might be helpful.

[Charles Burton]

My view is that there is absolutely no relationship between trade and human rights programming.

The Chinese will always want to buy the best product at the best price, regardless of the source, so I really don't think it's going to make any difference. We do hear from the Chinese when we do things that they would prefer we not do; for example, when our senior leaders met the Dalai Lama, the Chinese embassy made statements promising grave consequences, but since the Dalai Lama's departure to another country, we have so far not seen those consequences.

I don't believe there's a connection. The Chinese are pragmatic, and I don't think they would want to damage their economic interests by not fully engaging Canada in terms of trade and investment.

With regard to putting people at risk, I would be inclined to think quite the opposite. For example, with the Dzhelil case, if I were running things--and it's probably just as well I'm not--I would have Canadian diplomats going round and visiting Mr. Dzhelil's family, making a strong signal to the Chinese government that we are concerned, that we are noticing these people, and that we are standing with them. I don't see any reason a Canadian diplomat can't knock on any door of anyone in China and have a cup of tea, with the Chinese agents standing outside wondering what's going on. My feeling is that the more we engage with these people, the less risk they would be put at, so I would be inclined to do the right thing.

[Alex Neve]

With respect to the trade and human rights question, I think the assumption that trade is going to dry up or suffer if we talk about human rights has always been overstated. It's overstated in many relationships, and I think it's overstated in the Canada-China relationship as well. The contrary assumption--that if you just focus on getting the wheels of commerce humming along nicely, somehow all the human rights problems are going to take care of themselves--is also without foundation. Human rights need concerted attention; they need concerted attention in every venue and forum possible, and that includes areas dealing with trade and investment.

With respect to the issue of putting people at risk, I agree completely with Professor Burton. I think there can actually be tremendous value. Obviously you do it responsibly and carefully and not in a scattered, willy-nilly manner, but there can be real value. We see this all around the world when foreign governments take an active interest in local beleaguered human rights groups, provide resources in support of their work, or provide moral and solidarity support by attending trials or trying to visit family. That doesn't mean it's always going to be easy to do in China, and some of that access may sometimes be denied, but to see that start to be more assertively and consistently pursued would be very valuable.

Lastly, with respect to the Olympics, I agree wholeheartedly. I'll share with you a paper in both English and French that Amnesty International put out a few weeks ago. It lays out some of our recommendations in the lead-up to the Olympics. The recommendations are directed at a number of key players, including the International Olympic Committee. We think they're dropping the ball. A lot was said by the Chinese government and others, especially at the time when the Olympics were awarded to China by the IOC, about how this was going to be good for human rights, but we're not seeing any evidence that it has been good for human rights yet.

It is quite the contrary; in a number of ways, since some of the human rights violations have been carried out in the context of forced evictions related directly to Olympic construction, for instance, there are actually emerging human rights concerns, and now's the time for the international community, via the IOC, to start dealing with that, not a week before everyone arrives in Beijing in 2008.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

You still have time, Mr. Marston.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That's fine. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you.

Then we'll come back to Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses here this afternoon.

I think we're all in agreement that there are some tremendous atrocities going on. We also accept the fact that our foreign affairs minister recently made a statement to this effect, and I think that will help move this dialogue along.

I just want to clarify a few points about CIDA. I think there was a suggestion that China was one of the larger recipients of CIDA's aid, and that's not a fact. I believe Mr. Burton, or maybe Mr. Neve, commented that it's not one of the countries of focus or concentration by any means,

Mr. Sorenson probably started down this road, and the figures may not be accurate now, but there are a tremendous number of poor people living on less than a dollar a day. I believe two-thirds of the world's poor still live there. We can't abandon them; CIDA has to recognize that. My question is, how do we do it to make sure it doesn't get diverted to the wrong method, if you will, to the wrong purpose?

We've been there for a lot of years, and frankly, the minister is looking at it very seriously, because some of us here are on the record, as opposition members, criticizing that fact—

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Even as government members.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Even as government members. So we're looking at it from both sides now, having been in opposition and now being in government.

How do we do this, remembering that there are people there who are not being treated fairly? Do we tell CIDA to walk away and abandon them totally? How do we, as a government, balance that dilemma that we're put in?

As I say, the minister is looking at this very seriously, because CIDA is in place to help people. For us to say that we're going to cut off aid because the government isn't working with us...how do we balance the dilemma we're in?

[Charles Burton]

In terms of aid, I believe CIDA refers to it as development cooperation and doesn't see us as giving money to the Chinese regime.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I shouldn't use the term “aid”, you're right.

[Charles Burton]

Of course, as you know, China is a country that has a wonderfully rising economy. They're investing extensively in Canada. They've launched a man into space. You see the coastal cities of China and these are wonderfully modern cities.

The problem of poverty in China persists because the Chinese government, not being a democratic government, does not allocate national resources in a just way. Extremes of rich and poor are clearly not acceptable in the Canadian way. We don't believe in that.

So in terms of Canadian aid, considering the scale of China, there's no possibility of us being able to allocate dollars there to assist the Chinese people out of poverty. We might be able to engage in some suggestions as to improving agricultural productivity or other technical assistance, but we're not going to be able to solve the problem.

I think the solution really is to encourage the Chinese government to adopt principles of justice and to reallocate Chinese wealth, so that people who are living in conditions of grave poverty should be dealt with.

I would say, in defence of the Chinese government, they have improved in this area substantially. The number of people living in absolute poverty has decreased enormously since I lived in China in the 1970s, when it was rationing and the poverty was grinding and terrible, even relatively close to cities.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

We should clarify that this is the focus. Anything that CIDA is doing now is helping to promote a judicial system that will help and encourage civil society. That's a fundamental part of it, and I think you all recognize this, and good governance. So that's the challenge we face.

[Charles Burton]

If I could say one more thing in terms of your question, the most significant thing that could happen in China would be if China adopted freedom of information and a free press that would bring these issues to the attention of the society at large. Secondly, freedom of association would allow a free NGO sector, which is largely illegal in China because of Chinese government regulations with regard to registration of associations. If China allowed for free association and freedom of speech, the other rights would follow from those. That's my opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you.

The time has expired for that round.

Mr. Lee, you're next on the list.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Burton actually came close to the subject I wanted to raise and pose a question on. In western countries, the discussion of human rights often operates on a kind of myth that you can export human rights into another country like you would a franchise transaction. You just export it and it will work, but it actually doesn't work that way. It's a lot like exporting democracy from London, Paris, or Washington. It's actually very difficult to do, and societies have to generate their own workbook on this.

Two underpinning components of human rights accordance would be economic development—which Mr. Burton has spoken of, and China is doing reasonably well there—and the rule of law, the legal infrastructure, as has been adverted to here. Just to draw on the example mentioned by Mr. Neve, there's the shooting of the young woman on the border. What is the legal infrastructure in China? Is it sufficiently developed to sustain human rights accordance? Was that shooting a homicide? Was it a murder? Was it manslaughter? In Chinese law, what was that killing? That addresses the issue of the substantive law that applies to the human transaction.

Then, what other legal infrastructure or procedural infrastructure is there to allow the enforcement of the law in that human transaction? It sounds like a killing to me, but there are 1.3 billion or so people, so there are 1.3 billion human transactions going on in that country, exponentially multiplied.

So what infrastructure is there? Does our current relationship, in addition to this dialogue procedure, invest in assisting China to develop the legal infrastructure and substantive law procedures that would sustain human rights accordance more in keeping with world standards?

I suppose I should ask Mr. Burton that.

[Charles Burton]

Maybe I can speak briefly and then give it to the experts on human rights here.

First of all, with regard to your first part, when I started to get into this work, my feeling was that it's like the song, “To know know know her/Is to love love love her”. If we had a dialogue and we explained to the Chinese our political institutions and our values, once they understood them, they would want them for themselves, because we've developed a wonderful country based on these values of universal human rights. It turns out that this is not actually the case. I've been waiting many years. I'm now fifty years old, and I'm wondering how many more years it will be before I see the Chinese decide to convert to a liberal democracy.

With regard to the exit question, I should point out that we are concerned about illegal migration from China to Canada, and part of our government activity has been to encourage the Chinese border police to enforce their laws about illegal exit from the country. There seems to be a tension between our desire to tell the Chinese that they shouldn't be allowing those people from Fujian to leave the country and get on boats to come to Canada—which is part of our interaction with the Chinese authorities—and the human right to freely travel if they so wish.

In terms of the issue of the shooting of those people, as a Canadian, I was simply appalled by what I saw. I feel there is absolutely no justification for the border police to resort to guns and to shoot down people who are simply trying to leave the country to go to Nepal for the purpose of religious education that is not available to them in China.

[Alex Neve]

First, I couldn't agree more with your observation that human rights change is most effective when it comes from within a country. That applies anywhere in the world, and it certainly applies within China. That's one of the reasons for one of the issues I briefly drew attention to in my opening remarks.

There is a very promising fledgling but terribly beleaguered human rights community within China that in recent years has been really trying to do good work in the courts, in public venues, in demonstrations, and in all sorts of things. Lawyers are imprisoned, though, for trying to raise human rights issues in court, for instance. That's one of the reasons why that should be a particular focus of Canada's engagement with China around human rights issues. We should be doing everything we can to provide support to those within China who are trying to advance that sort of work, and make it very clear to the Chinese government that persecution of those individuals is absolutely unacceptable.

I also firmly agree with your observation that what we obviously want is to advance real reforms to the architecture in the institutions and the laws that stand behind human rights and ensure that human rights won't just be empty words but truly will be protected. We need to ensure that there are mechanisms to ensure that's the case, and that there are mechanisms to ensure that those who violate human rights actually are held accountable and that there are consequences.

Once again, with the tragedy of the killings at the Tibet-Nepal border, we're seeing this isn't the case. The Chinese government simply retreated to an assertion that it was self-defence, end of story, and nothing further seems to be happening right now.

Amnesty, Tibetan organizations, and many governments have been pressing the Chinese government to launch an independent investigation into what has happened. By pressing around a particular tragedy and by demanding that there be an appropriate response in keeping with international standards, perhaps this could be a good example of an area where that not only addresses the terrible things that have happened in that case, but one that could start to be one small stepping stone in terms of bringing a different approach, a different culture into the Chinese justice system. It's going to take a lot of concerted pressure from other governments to make sure China moves forward with something like that, but certainly we can't allow the response that we've had so far.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you.

Mr. Abbott is not sworn in for the purpose of voting, but he has asked to take the next government round. I think we can allow that.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

About three weeks ago, I was in Beijing and attended a meeting convened with Mr. He Yafei, an official with the Chinese government. It was a meeting attended by members of the Canada-China Legislative Association who were also touring in China at the time.

At that meeting, He Yafei said something really quite startling. He was referring to what had most recently occurred with respect to our recognition of the Dalai Lama. He also brought up the issue of the number of MPs travelling from our Parliament and from the Senate to Taiwan. He came out with a very startling comment. He said they were wondering why their Canadian friends were doing this to them. Those were his exact words, and it rather took me and the rest of the Canadian delegation back a little bit.

Taking a look at the fact that I would suspect there is a tremendous amount of empathy for the positions you have enunciated in this hearing today, we're coming from very much the same point of view, as it were. I guess the question is, in practical terms, in your best judgment, with the experience that you've had with the Chinese, was Mr. He actually expressing where they were coming from?

I should underline that the people in the embassy also relayed to me that people who have been conversing with them have been saying China's relationship with Canada is at an all-time low. That's what the people in the Canadian embassy were telling me, and this was part of that, as a continuum. Do you think he was actually expressing where the Chinese are coming from?

Number two, and more importantly, Canadians as a society have very strong feelings about human rights. It's distinctive of being Canadian. How can we, in practical terms, communicate with him or with other people in that regime to effectively change it? It's one thing for us to have a position, but in practical terms, how can we actually be working to see changes?

[Charles Burton]

That's a very good question.

If I could say one thing off the top about the legislative exchange between the Parliament of Canada and the National People's Congress, I do think it's good for us to be engaging parliamentarians in China. However, we have to be very careful that we're not being manipulated by the Chinese side to try to establish a moral equivalence between our democratic parliamentary institutions and the National People's Congress of China, which is not in any way qualitatively anything like the Canadian Parliament. It is not a democratic institution. It is not the supreme organ of political power in China that it purports to be. When we're dealing with them, we should not allow them to say we're all parliamentarians together, because they're not the same as the distinguished members of this House.

Secondly, I think it's better to be respected than loved. In international diplomacy one should not have friends, but one has interests. I believe that by being frank, transparent, and honest, we will do better in the long run with China than we would through a notion of being concerned about offending the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. I don't suggest that we should be in any way offensive or personally condemnatory, but I think it's important to be frank and honest with them. We gain more respect and Canada's interests in the long run are better served.

Of course, on a personal basis, all the Chinese people that I met agree with what I said in the report. They understand these things.

I do think meeting with Mr. He and speaking with him is the way to go, frankly. I don't think it would be good not to meet with him. But when we do meet with him, we should speak our minds. I don't think we ought to be considering that if we say this, the Chinese government will be disturbed. And for their side, let them speak frankly to us about issues such as why their government thinks it's okay to shoot down Tibetans crossing the border, and we'll deal on an equal basis based on where we're really coming from. That's the healthiest way for us to relate to China.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you.

Madam St-Hilaire.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Burton.

Your remarks were quite interesting and refreshing. Each time the subject of China comes up, we get the feeling that we are walking on eggshells, afraid of the kind of reaction we might provoke. I'm naive enough to hope that the government will look to your comments for inspiration.

Mr. Menzies planted a seed of doubt. I checked in the reports from our research analysts and discovered that even Stockwell Day had remarked on November 15 last that Chine had received nearly $1 billion over the past ten years. I realize that it's not like Canada actually handed over $1 billion to China. However, the fact remains that there is certainly a cost associated with implementing these programs.

In light of your comments, the committee will have no other alternative, in my opinion, but to invite CIDA officials to testify. I have no objection to our carrying out programs in China. Quite the contrary, in fact. As you've demonstrated once again, these initiatives are very important. However, it's quite another matter when programs are terminated in Ethiopia because the country's has failed to uphold human rights when in China, we're almost afraid of taking any action. We're told that economic considerations must prevail. Mr. Burton, I think you've shed some light on this subject this afternoon for the benefit of the subcommittee.

Mr. Neve, on October 6 last, you sent a letter to Mr. Harper. I'd like to know if you received an answer from the Prime Minister or from the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

On another note, there has been considerable talk about the upcoming Olympic Games. If the human rights situation does not improve, or in fact even deteriorates, do you think Canada should go so far as to threaten an athletes' boycott of the Games?

Thank you.

[Alex Neve]

With respect to the first question, no, we have not yet had a response either from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It has been three or four weeks, which is not a long time to not have yet received a response to the letter.