Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[Xun (Shawn) Li]

Yes, the Netherlands.

We are talking about nothing but an illusion, a morality play. It's nothing more than the old saying of the emperor's new clothes. It is only whether or not we point it out.

Lastly, I want to highlight an article from The Globe and Mail, called Punish Us - Please. It was written to say that when China sanctions and punishes us, Canadians take advantage of the punishment. It is China that wants the trade more than we do. The truth is, when they do, they have the loss not only financially but morally.

The last point I want to make is this. We have a large trade deficit, but I'm more concerned about another deficit, which is morality, the principle deficit, since the bilateral dialogue. How can we afford this principle and morality deficit?

The trade deficit you can make up and amend in future years in trade, but with a morality deficit, you are risking people's lives. They put their lives on the line, and such loss is irreversible. In that regard, we encourage Canada to speak courageously, and we support you in doing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you, Mr. Li.

We'll now go to Mr. Sorenson.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you.

I apologize. I have to give a speech at 12 o'clock, so I'm going to have to hit and run here and get to the next event.

I want to thank you for coming here today. Certainly, as we sit and listen to the examples of offences in China—all sides, as a committee—we are definitely moved. The question then is, how can we respond, and what is required of us? That's why I appreciated Mr. Cotler's question: what can parliamentarians do?

We have two different sides, and in some ways two different sides butting up, and you've already addressed this—the side of trade and the side of human rights; the side of prosperity of China and alleged human rights offences, and the prosperity of Canada and how to stand up for our values and our principles and the things we've done.

We also have to be quite honest, as a new government. All parties recognize the importance of playing a role in helping to alleviate the human rights violations around the world. I can tell you for myself that I don't want it to become political, whereby we say “the way the former government used to do it” compared with the way we do it. In any of my comments, I'm not saying that in a political way.

But since 1997, Canada has pursued—initiated by the former government—bilateral talks with China. As reported in most papers, the perception is that as we meet behind closed doors, China has been sending lower levels of officials all the time. It's not the high-ranking officials who are there and are going to talk about issues both governments have wanted to talk about; it's more lower-level officials who are coming to meet.

What would you recommend?

This past week, we saw the Prime Minister stand up and take some heat, frankly. I guess I'd like comments on that.

But more specifically, what other measures can we undertake to put teeth into the dialogue between Canada and China? We've talked about parliamentary committees travelling and doing this and doing that. We send high-level officials; sometimes they send low-level officials. What else can we do to put teeth into it?

And maybe we could have your comments about our Prime Minister and the controversy that was perceived by some when he made it very clear that we wanted to talk about a balanced range of subjects—trade and human rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Go ahead, David, if you'd like.

[David Cozac]

Just in terms of improving measures in a dialogue, in future what could be done is that when this dialogue resumes, if indeed it does, Canada should have clear objectives, activities, and expected results. Also, there should be an activity plan incorporated with it that has an identifiable timeframe and benchmarks: what the expected outcomes are; how you will monitor the impact of the conversation, of the initiatives.

All these documents and plans should be made public as well, in both Canada and China. Some of those things can be useful in improving the dialogue and the parameters and actual structure of it.

[Cheuk Kwan]

Mr. Sorenson, I want to use the word “linking”, in terms of linking human rights and trade, because I think there's a positive link. In every case that we have known, a good human rights record will always contribute to a better civil society. A society that respects the rule of law contributes to better trade relationships with other nations, and obviously to better domestic prosperity in that country.

I want to use a football analogy, if I may. Abandoning, for example, public criticism of China in the multilateral forum in favour of solely carrying on a bilateral dialogue is almost like telling your opponent that you're just going to run the ball and not pass it. In any dealings we have with China, especially in human rights, we need to make sure we have a balanced attack, if I may use that word. We need a balanced approach when dealing with China.

Bilateral dialogues are not entirely useless, but as I said before, I think it needs to involve better participation by civil society. As my colleagues have mentioned, obviously the bilateral relationship should be coming forth from the top level--between, for example, the prime ministerial level and the ministerial level--but to make it really work, it needs to have the participation of people on the ground, people from the civil society, people from both sides of the fence. I believe this is key to making it effective and useful.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you.

[Xue Sheng]

Of course, dialogue is very important, but dialogue is not just talking to each other; there are lots of other ways to have dialogue.

As I mentioned in my presentation, the Chinese government is holding a big human rights exhibition that the Chinese media are calling the biggest human rights exhibition in the world. It is the first one held by the state. Of course, the Chinese government has learned to be smarter on human rights issues. The Chinese government knows how to educate its own people to be proud of the human rights situation in China. But Chinese citizens don't have much information about the real human rights situation in the world. I think we need to do this, and in three parts: Canadian society, the Chinese Canadian society here, and the Chinese society in China.

We have a million Chinese people here in Canada. When Prime Minister Harper raised the human rights situation in China, I don't think every Chinese person here was happy about that. To me that's very funny, because why are we here? Why did we come to Canada?

We had a rally in Toronto yesterday, and I spoke to the crowd in the street. A lot of people were yelling at us, “Hey, you are here. Why are you saying something good about Harper? Aren't you Chinese?” I said, “Ask yourself why you are here, why you are in Canada.” It was pretty strange.

The Chinese community here is frightened by the Chinese government, even though they are in Canada. I think the Canadian government should invest in the Chinese community here in Canada, to educate them and let them know, to protect them and make them safe. A lot of Chinese organizations or social groups are very close to the consulate and to the embassy. Why is that? It's not because they don't understand the values, or they don't trust or agree with the values; it's just because they are so frightened. They know that the Chinese government is so brutal they could do anything.

Take me. I am a very good example. Because I speak up here in Canada, I have been barred from visiting my family in China for 18 years. This is the kind of challenge that not everyone can take.

So I do think the Canadian government should invest more in Chinese society in Canada as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

The time is up. We'll have to pass to Mr. Marston.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by going back to Mr. Sorenson's comments about not blaming previous governments and not getting into pointing fingers. One of the things I find hard to balance with that, though, is the fact that Canada itself has not signed on to the optional protocol on torture. But that's kind of an aside.

The balance between trade and human rights is a very terrible place to find ourselves. I want to thank you for coming here today and expressing your strong concerns on the issues.

I want to ask two things. First of all, we have Mr. Celil, who is a Canadian citizen being held in China. We have our Prime Minister, who made his remarks the other day, and we're still not clear about what took place when they actually met. And I'm not going to critique that one way or another. But I am concerned when you raise the 30,000 NGOs. Would they not, number one, be seen as subversive by the government the moment they start to become active? That's difficult.

I'll go beyond that, though, because we're really talking about the dialogue here today. What would you think of a proposal that said the dialogue is suspended, that we bring together union groups, that we bring together civil society, NGOs, and members of this committee to consider the dialogue's future? That's number one.

Number two, when the dialogue resumes, it would become accountable to this committee, as opposed to the direction now, because there are more political teeth in what we do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Go ahead, Mr. Li.

[Xun (Shawn) Li]

I want to make a few comments. One is that we cannot utilize the bilateral dialogue as the sole means or the central channel for the promotion of human rights, because we have to use every means possible to promote human rights, and this is a concern.

Second, regarding the Prime Minister's actions in the past week, as the Falun Dafa Association we do not have any inclination toward either party. We don't have those kinds of political aspirations. What we do support is a principled approach, regardless of whether you are Liberal or NDP or Conservative. We support that principled approach, as we mentioned before. As one of the MPs told us, it is very hard for different parties to get together, but on the Falun Gong issue, on the human rights issue, it is easier, because these are universal values and are not owned by any party.

Third, I want to highlight the individuals. A number of people mentioned that it does make a difference. David Kilgour and David Matas are regarded as heroes of human rights defenders for what they have done on the organ harvesting investigation. They are testifying in many countries--in the U.S. and in other countries.

On the NGOs, the people have the wish in China, in Canada, that they should be part of this dialogue, because they truly care about human rights.

Another thing is that when China protests, we should read it differently. It's a command for what they are doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

We'll go to Mr. Kwan.

[Cheuk Kwan]

I welcome Mr. Martin's suggestion for the bilateral dialogue process to report directly to this subcommittee. Accountability is one of the key issues that we have been very frustrated about over the last ten years, in the sense that we've been briefed and debriefed by Foreign Affairs every time, before and after a bilateral dialogue. But every time we do that, there are always parts of these documents that are blackened because they are confidential or because the Chinese asked to keep them confidential.

I certainly do not understand. Certainly there is respect in that. However, I think if we have nothing to hide, if the Chinese have nothing to hide, there shouldn't be anything that cannot be disclosed, at least not to your partners in this dialogue process.

I would welcome that kind of accountability, because symbolically, then, it represents a reporting to the people instead of to the government, which is a good example that we can set for China.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

You don't have to answer, but....

[David Cozac]

No, I have just a brief comment to that.

I echo the point about greater accountability and reporting to this committee results from the dialogue.

I think another way to strengthen the dialogue process is for the Canadian government to consult also with other nations, specifically European nations that carry out their own bilateral dialogues with the Government of China. I think there is a lot of room for Canada to collaborate with those countries in streamlining the dialogues they have, perhaps by selecting focus issues, or perhaps even by Canada's taking on a special expertise on a certain aspect of human rights while other countries focus on other aspects.

For example, I think it's the Government of Denmark that focuses on the Tibet issue in its dialogue with the Chinese government. Perhaps Canada could do something similar—or in collaboration with the other European nations, anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

We'll pass now to Mr. Fitzpatrick.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you very much.

I find this quite interesting. It's not a committee that I'm normally on, but it's a very fascinating topic.

I'd like to pursue the issue of trade, economic development, and human rights.

Last week the world lost one of—in my mind—the great economic thinkers of all time and a valued fighter for freedom, Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize winner.

The puzzle I have with the trends in China today, quite literally, is that, if I understand Professor Friedman correctly, free market economy and economic development go hand in hand with a high level of personal freedom, the freedom of people to express their points of view and make their decisions in a free society. You could make a very compelling case for these things being intertwined and joined at the hip.

It seems to me the authorities in China have embarked on half the puzzle at this stage, moving toward a market economy and a capitalistic enterprise society without understanding, perhaps, the other half of the equation. I don't see them as being separate entities; I see them, like Professor Friedman, as being very much a part of the same equation.

My question is, do the people in power in China not understand the connection between these fundamental human rights—freedom of choice, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion—and the sustainability of a market economy? And if they don't, is it not important that other countries try to educate them on the importance of this connection?

[Cheuk Kwan]

Could I answer that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Please go ahead.

[Cheuk Kwan]

That's the $64,000 question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Isn't it more like a $64 billion question?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Cheuk Kwan]

I'm sure they understand it. I'm sure they all understand that there's a link between human rights and freedom with a market economy, which obviously China is going towards.

One of the problems we're facing is the so-called transition in China. The current government obviously wants to hold on to power. They know that once political freedom has been given to the people, you would have in essence a democracy, perhaps, starting in China. This is something that any authoritarian government would be very frightened of. I believe that's, in a sense, the kind of fear the Communist Party has right now about their stranglehold in China.

I recently listened to a talk given by a fellow from the Carnegie Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a Chinese from the mainland, and his analysis of the whole situation, as I've pointed out, is that there will be an implosion within China—perhaps in decades, in less than ten or twenty years. There will be an implosion because the central control power from Beijing no longer stretches as far down as to the city level.

That's the point I made to Madame St-Hilaire before. When we're dealing with trade contracts or business contacts, more often than not we're dealing with a lot of local authorities. These local authorities are more and more distancing themselves from any national policy or from any nationalistic attitudes towards human rights such as those the current government has.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Sheng Xue.