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

[Xue Sheng]

I believe the Chinese government understands as much as we do about democracy and human rights, but when one party is in power, they think it's forever. They don't think they need democracy and human rights. That's why I don't think the human rights dialogue between the Canadian and Chinese governments will work.

We can imagine that if we had one party in Canada and they looked at it as forever, this party wouldn't need democracy and human rights. The only thing they need is to control society, control people, and control everything, so they can make sure they are in power forever.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

We've run out of time.

We'll pass now to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj for a five-minute round.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and I'd like to thank the panel of witnesses.

Because of the time limitations, I'll go through my three questions immediately, and then perhaps one person could answer each of them. I envision that some of the answers will be quite brief. Then if there is time, I'd like to get back to this whole question of linkages between economic ties and human rights.

We've heard reference to the report by Mr. Matas and Mr. Kilgour. It's an excellent report. Most MPs received copies, but they did have limited access. I believe that most people see this for what it is—in fact, an admission of guilt. If there's nothing to hide, then why not provide access?

In your statements, it would be helpful, if you can't provide it at this time, to table some documentation that would give a numeric value to the trade in harvested organs: the numbers and types of organs, a dollar value, and how this ties into the penitentiary system in China. It will be very helpful to have this on the record with the committee.

If someone knows this offhand, please give us a glimpse into that particular trade.

Also there was reference to a fear within the Chinese Canadian community of repercussions from the Chinese government. I have also heard reports of direct intimidation of Canadians of Chinese background involved in media. Perhaps someone could provide concrete examples of direct intimidation by the Chinese government here in Canada. That would be quite helpful.

The third question concerns China preparing for the Olympics. Millions of visitors will be traveling to China. What opportunities do you envision that this particular event will provide? Has China changed some of its internal behaviour when it comes to human rights in preparation for the Olympics?

After addressing those questions, I'd like to address the issue of linkages between economic trade and human rights, if there is some time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I'll remind each of you to be brief, because time is limited.

[Xun (Shawn) Li]

I will make it very brief.

I would recommend that the committee have a separate hearing for David Matas and David Kilgour, so that it can address this matter extensively.

Secondly, I want to highlight that there is ample evidence, about 80 pages, collected by the world organization in investigating the prosecution of Falun Gong. It's not only Chinese Canadian citizens. Even members of Parliament are physically assaulted and also have received hate.... They have asked them to withdraw their support of Falun Gong.

One example is former MP Gordon Earle. He received a letter and spoke on behalf of the multicultural spokesperson for the NDP, asking that we restore support for the Falun Dafa. He signed another letter saying that he congratulated them again.

Another example is Andy Wells, the mayor of St. John's, Newfoundland, who received a letter asking him to withdraw his support. He wrote that “this exemplifies your moral and ethical corruption by persecuting this innocent group”.

I will provide the information to you after.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Can you table some of those documents for the committee?

[Xun (Shawn) Li]

Yes.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Ms. Xue, you had some experience with this sort of issue, didn't you?

[Xue Sheng]

Yes. I want to comment on the Olympics matter. When Beijing won the Olympics, the CBC interviewed me. They said, “It's so hard to find someone who has an opposite opinion against Beijing holding the Olympics.” They couldn't find anyone. I said I understood why that is. They asked, “Why are you against Beijing holding the Olympics?” I gave seven reasons for it.

First of all, I know the Chinese regime will kill more citizens, because they want the society to be more stable and they don't have any other way to keep it stable. The only way is that more Chinese will lose their lives. The second is that the Olympics will have more corruption for the government level. We already see some examples. For those two reasons, I think the Canadian government can do a lot.

For example, we have a family member who is serving a life sentence in a Chinese prison, Wang Bingzhang. His parents and actual wife, brothers, sisters, and children all are Canadian citizens. We should ask the Chinese government to release him in exchange for our supporting the Olympics in Beijing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

We're at six minutes. We'll come back to a second round; we'll have time for that, Borys. Is that okay?

Ted, you have five minutes.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses today. I'm sure I echo the comments of all the committee members: this is very troubling, and we appreciate your sharing it with us. I think it's a message that needs to get out. In the interests of time, I'll keep my comments very brief and give you lots of opportunity to answer.

I'll go a little farther than Mr. Sorenson did. I was a little surprised at some of the reactions to our Prime Minister's standing up last week for human rights, and being very forceful about it. Frankly, I'm very proud of what he did, the position he took. We are a trading nation—we all realize that—but we can't forsake the rights of individuals just because of the almighty dollar, and I think I'm quoting the Prime Minister on that.

I think that is very important, and I would like your comments. We've heard some negative press about the position he took. I'm sure you have contacted or been contacted by many of your friends and associates. I'd like some of those comments, if you would present them.

At the end of this, the committee will be drafting a report, so most importantly, I would like some specific observations or recommendations that you might give us that we can put in that report and that will be helpful in submitting back to Parliament recommendations that will be the foundation of where Canada might go in the future, specifically on what you're telling us about today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Cheuk, go ahead.

[Cheuk Kwan]

I'd like to use a case from a few days ago when I was on CBC being interviewed, first on my reaction to the Prime Minister's trip. I gave my two cents' worth of opinion. The second caller was a business person from, I believe, Winnipeg. I was expecting contradiction from him and I was urging CBC to give me some rebuttal time, but they didn't give it to me. However, what I found out—I was very pleasantly surprised—was that he agreed with everything I said. He was upset about the China snub, obviously, but not for reasons of human rights.

I think that in our media sometimes we, perhaps unnecessarily, link the so-called China snub with our human rights stands. I believe the two can be very separate. I believe that, as Mr. Li said, sometimes it's a morality play in which China wants to carry a big stick and wave its big stick; however, I think at the end you will find it never was a threat. I believe this is something we have to consider.

If we are doing the right thing, we will earn their respect, threats notwithstanding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Go ahead, Mr. Li.

[Xun (Shawn) Li]

I think the judgment should not be which media said what about the Prime Minister; it is whether the Prime Minister stands up for Canadian values. If it is yes, regardless of what the media is saying, and the Prime Minister stands up for Canadian values, that is what is most important.

The judgment that is really important is the judgment from the court of morality. We have the legal court and we have the court of morality. This court is very significant. If we speak from our conscience, from morality, and you earn it, regardless of what the media are saying to you, history will be the judge of what we have done.

History will also be the judge of what we should have done but did not do. We shouldn't leave what we should have done for the future to amend; we should do whatever we should have done.

I think the Prime Minister did what he should have done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

If I could use the chair's discretion to make an intervention, when I was in China, in Beijing, as has been mentioned, I was with Zhao Ziyang's family shortly following his death to bring condolences on behalf of Canadians and others who regarded him as an important figure for reform and democratization in China. Canadian officials tried to direct me not to go to his family house. They said to do so would cause great damage to the bilateral relationship; it would set things back enormously, and there would be consequences. Of course, there were no visible consequences of any kind. The only thing that continued was the growth of the Chinese trade surplus with Canada, so I don't imagine they'd want to jeopardize that.

I'm just going to ask one question, and then we'll come back to your round.

The narrative Mr. Menzies referred to in the past week in response to the initial cancellation of the bilateral heads of government meeting was that this was precipitated by a series of actions taken by the government and Parliament, including our granting refugee status to Lu Decheng, an important Chinese dissident; our parliament's unanimous consent for honourary citizenship to the Dalai Lama; my own greeting him in Canada on behalf of the government; and gestures such as these.

Would you care to comment on that? My understanding is that the United States Congress has granted the Dalai Lama the congressional medal of honour. They've received hundreds of political dissidents as refugees to the United States. The President has met with the Dalai Lama at the White House. Why do you think some people in Canada believe that we have less moral authority than our neighbours to the south when it comes to operating on the international stage and speaking for Canadian values? I don't understand why we Canadians are always so proud about ourselves vis-à-vis the United States, yet too many people in this country seem willing to set a lower standard for ourselves when it comes to engaging.

[Cheuk Kwan]

The excuse I've always heard, both in Ottawa and in Geneva, is that Canada is a small country and cannot afford to offend China--unlike the U.S., which can carry clout that is perhaps ten times bigger than ours.

However, I go back to my story about Denmark. Little Denmark stood up to the so-called giants at that time and suffered no consequences. I think that's a message we want to get out to our politicians as well as our people: Canada can say no to China without an adverse effect on our relationship.

I think too often our officials perhaps have been a little bit too intimidated in dealing with China. Perhaps, as I mentioned before, they put this pretext of oriental culture around it. They almost treat China as a country differently from the way we normally treat other countries. I think that's perhaps the mindset we need to reverse and get clear about.

[David Cozac]

To be sure, Canada is a middle power on the world stage. But in the end, it's better to speak out than to be silent. I think it's good for the Canadian government to do so. I would also say that with Canada speaking out, it's joining other governmental voices around the world. It's the cumulative effect of these governments in the west speaking out against human rights abuses in China that does have an impact. By all means, Canada should be vocal in this regard.

[Xue Sheng]

The Canadian government is democratic. It needs support from its own people. When it's dealing with Chinese human rights issues, it needs support from the Chinese community in Canada. It is a big community. I think I mentioned before that the Chinese community in Canada is pretty weak. It is not strong enough, not independent enough, and not brave enough. The Chinese consulate and the embassy control Chinese society pretty tightly.

I called a friend here in Ottawa yesterday and said we were going to have a rally on Parliament Hill and to please call friends in Ottawa to join us. He said he could only get two or three, and they wouldn't dare come out. I said, that's pretty strange. We are in Canada, we are supporting the Canadian government, we are happy with what Harper did, and they're not brave enough to come out. It's something that really shouldn't be.

The Canadian government needs to be aware that the Chinese community is getting bigger and bigger. But when it's not independent, when it's controlled by a foreign government, and when people are afraid to support the Canadian government, it's a dangerous thing for the whole society.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Good point.

I promised Borys another round.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I will continue with this $64 billion question on real or hypothetical linkages between human rights and trade with China.

Once again, unfortunately, we don't have the stats in front of us. Perhaps, Mr. Kwan, you'll be able to provide some additional information.

From my understanding, there is an imbalance of trade between our two countries. Those who are concerned with Canada's macroeconomics would smile if they thought there would be an effect on that trade relationship, because China quite clearly is the beneficiary.

You can't envelope all relationships in generalizations, but my understanding is that most of our trade with China involves raw resources. China has tremendous interest, for instance, in our oil, whereas most of the trade in this direction is in finished goods. They're a very low-cost producer.

There are a number of countries, even from the same region, that don't abuse rights in the same way that China does. They would be happy to fill that void pretty quickly, and they would be quite capable of doing so. In fact, if China is not a market for our raw goods, our oil, there is a world market. I don't think we would have any difficulty finding other markets.

It seems to be a false debate and a false argument on a number of levels. It was helpful that you used the examples of Holland and Denmark. Perhaps you can provide more detail and substance to the actual trade relationship, so we could dispel some of those false arguments in the media.

[Cheuk Kwan]

I'm not an economist, but I can certainly say that macroeconomics plays a big role. If you want to blame anybody, you can blame Wal-Mart, or people like that who are bringing in cheaper China goods. Unfortunately, that's a consumer decision. That's something I don't think any government can control.

To try and adjust the balance, the only thing we can urge Canadians to do is perhaps to develop a hard technology, as in the case of Bombardier and Spar Aerospace and so forth, that can export value-added goods and technology to China. In reality, we are perhaps at the expense of the international economy.

That further sustains my point that it doesn't really matter what you do on the human rights front. China will do what it wants to do. China will buy the resources, if they're at the right price, and we will buy their goods, if they're at the right price. In that sense, I don't see any adverse reaction in terms of human rights and our stance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you.

Mr. Li.

[Xun (Shawn) Li]

Regarding the details of the data, the trade volume between China and Denmark in 2003 was $2.4 billion U.S., an increase of 58.2% from the previous year. This is one of the numbers.

Also, about six months after the postponement of the minister's trip to China from the Netherlands, a large economic mission of Dutch led by the vice-Prime Minister and minister of economic affairs went to China. This is the reality.

I also want to highlight very briefly that regardless of whether your country is big or small, or what your population is, as long as you are righteous, you have moral power. This is what every Falun Gong practitioner is doing in China. When they unfolded the banner in Tiananmen Square, they had moral authority there, and their power was very strong. Regarding fear and the loss of fear, it is unjustified either from inside or from outside. When they break out in fear, the person holding those values should not be afraid; rather those who destroy those values should be afraid.