Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[Jeff Nankivell]

We will have to get back to you in terms of a definition of what projects that would include. In terms of our governance programming--writ large, human rights, democratic development and good governance programming--last year 45.5% of our overall disbursements were in that sector, if you can call it that, with the rest being in environment and some older projects from earlier priorities that are running out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

My second question is this: are you aware of a precedent of a single-party state, including communist systems, where there is an independent judiciary and respect for natural justice?

[Hau Sing Tse]

I think if you look at the kinds of initiatives we focus on, it's really working on some of the enabling environments, such as making the courts more professional.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I'm talking globally. When you look at programming in this area, for a system like the one we find in China, are you aware of any precedent where a single-party state has an independent judiciary?

[Hau Sing Tse]

I cannot think of one off the top of my head.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I'll relate to you an anecdote. The chief justice of a supreme court of one of the European countries told me he was leading a mission of European judges to the PRC and inter alia attended what appeared to be a model criminal trial where natural justice and due process seemed to be perfectly observed. Following the trial, he left the court building in Beijing, and while they were waiting to board their bus, they saw the prosecutor and the defence attorney and the accused and the judge and the court reporter, all of the personnel involved in the trial, come out the side door of the court building dressed in their civilian clothes. It was his inference that it was a mock trial.

That is to say, this chief justice of a European supreme court suggested to me that many of the programs of exchange with western legal and judicial authorities are not undertaken in good faith. Do you have any comment on that kind of experience?

[Jeff Nankivell]

I can't comment on that specific experience. I think that the kinds of programs we support are about long-term engagement, where the same players on each side are involved with each other over an extended period.

I really think the committee would need to talk with the Canadian experts—judges, legal scholars, and so on—who are involved in the actual programs we're supporting to get a sense from them of what they've been seeing, and whether or not when they visited courts and engaged with court personnel they had a sense that something was staged for them.

Hypothetically, I would suggest that a one-time visit, a one-time exchange, has a greater risk of that kind of thing happening than if you have a sustained series of visits back and forth with people who are talking as professionals to professionals.

Certainly our experience, from talking with the people who are involved day-to-day in the projects that we are supporting at the National Judicial Institute, the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, and the Canadian Bar Association, is that they have professional counterparts and professional discussions.

When our Supreme Court justices engaged with their counterparts in China, they reported to us that they had substantive discussions, and that's what we have to go on in terms of having a level of confidence.

[Hau Sing Tse]

This is also quite symptomatic of a country that is moving forward and evolving, with a lot of rapid changes on multiple levels. In terms of the CIDA program, that's why we try to work with and put a lot of effort into identifying the reform-minded elements among the people we work with, so that we don't get exposed to those kind of situations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

The last question is a general one for Mr. Houlden or Madam Dion.

In his report, Professor Burton quotes an official at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that the main purpose of the dialogue is “to defuse foreign unease with China's human rights record”. That's on the Chinese side.

On the Canadian side, I asked Professor Burton and other witnesses if they thought that Canada's commencement of the dialogue in 1997 was motivated principally by a desire to have an alternate track from presenting or supporting resolutions at the Office of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. Mr. Burton's response was that he couldn't comment, because this related to a classified section of his report. But he said it was pretty clear in the discussions that Mr. Axworthy had with Chinese leadership in this regard, and he referred to public statements that Mr. Axworthy made in 1997.

Alex Neve of Amnesty International responded to the same question and said, “Our view is that the decision was made”—the decision to go into the bilateral dialogue, as opposed to the UN High Commission for Human Rights resolutions—“to get the uncomfortable topic of human rights out of the Canada-China relationship”.

So given that there are people on the Chinese side who say that the dialogue was designed to defuse foreign unease with China's human rights record, and there are people on the Canadian side who say that it was designed to avoid public discussion of these issues and to downgrade human rights in the dialogue, do you think these are fair and reasonable characterizations of the policy? If so, how can we expect to be effective if indeed it was developed to avoid a full and frank exchange?

[Gordon Houlden]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

These are people I've known for a long time, including Dr. Burton. I've worked with him in the Canadian embassy in Beijing and have known him for many years. Many of the other people you've had as witnesses I've known for a very long time as well. I respect their views in general.

There's not an easy answer to this one. I was involved with the first round of the dialogue, and I took it seriously. I certainly didn't see it in policy terms as a way to let the Chinese off the hook. It does not surprise me, on the other hand, that the Chinese foreign ministry may see it in these terms. Their motivations are not precisely known to me, but ours are certainly very different. They may see this as a way to deflect criticism, but our view is that it's an opportunity to bring criticism home to their own ministries, to investigate human rights abuses, to learn more about them, and hopefully to suggest to some of their officials better ways in which things can be done.

There is also in some cases motivation on the Chinese side towards stability, and we can use that to our own effect by modernizing some of their systems. That's the theory behind it.

Whether Dr. Burton came to the conclusion, after almost 10 years of the dialogue, that it was overall utility.... I've read his report--we commissioned it, after all--and I respect his views in general.

As to the other question, I was involved in those decisions, as I have been in.... It was my 21st year working on China affairs. I am not aware of, in effect, a cynical desire to substitute for the resolution a dialogue. There was a sense among many people that the annual vote on the resolution had become a somewhat sterile exercise and that we needed to try new approaches, that perhaps directly dealing with Chinese ministries and the Chinese government might bear fruit.

Dr. Burton and others, and obviously the members around this table, will come to their own conclusions about whether that has been achieved. But certainly the motivation of the officials involved, speaking for myself at least, was not to make a cynical trade-off. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

What is the evaluation of the dialogue? I think it has merit. Can it be made better? That's certainly worth an effort. But it is really for the government as a whole to determine the course forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

On a second round, we go to Mr. Sorenson.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madame Dion, you talk about the next round of discussions with the Chinese government. In the last round of discussions we had with some of the Chinese officials, there was a group of Canadian NGOs that met in Toronto and Montreal, who sat down and discussed some of the issues.

How do you get on the list to be one of the NGOs represented? It's my understanding that there was a group of NGOs that have had a long history of work and development in China but were not invited. How do you get on that list when these decisions are taking place?

[Adèle Dion]

I was not in my present job when the dialogue took place last year, but my understanding is that all of the Canadian non-governmental organizations who are interested should be in touch with Foreign Affairs, with the department, beforehand. We try to consult as comprehensively as possible.

Of course, because this is a government-to-government discussion, the Chinese side presents to us in advance their delegation list, and we are obligated to do the same thing. Both sides have a right of refusal, if you will.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Has it happened with China that they have said no, we would rather not have this group here?

[Adèle Dion]

Yes, it has.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

How many times?

[Adèle Dion]

Although I don't have as long a record on China issues as my colleague Mr. Houlden, I was around and was present when the dialogue was initiated in 1997, and I was with it until about 2000. I would say, in that time, there were perhaps two or three times.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Can you tell us which groups were refused by the Chinese delegates?

[Adèle Dion]

No, I'm sorry, I can't, partly because I don't have a good enough institutional memory, but also because it is part of a government-to-government discussion.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

So that wouldn't be available to this committee if we requested that information? Even though you don't have the information with you today, is it something you could provide to the committee?

Can you check?

[Adèle Dion]

Yes. We'll take it under advisement and get back to you.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

These NGOs that were refused, are they still active in China? What's their status? If these NGOs were refused from sitting down in Montreal and Toronto, and they've had, in some cases, years and years of involvement there, I find it odd that they would refuse to meet with them. Have they been cut off from their...?

[Gordon Houlden]

Again, we do need to get back to you on this to make sure we're replying accurately, but my experience has been that the NGOs that are most difficult for the Chinese to work with, the ones that are most likely to be refused, are ones that are actually not operating, at least openly, on Chinese territory. They may be operating sub rosa, or they may be doing things outside of China that the Chinese find particularly difficult.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

In your testimony, you talk about the “next round” and you say you've underlined your concerns in the last round, as has been done in previous years, and that this is part of the ongoing process of engagement.

In point 7 you say, “We are now working to build constructive reforms into the dialogue based on findings of the commissioned assessment, NGO recommendations, and in-house expertise.” And then you said you will be seeking guidance from the minister once this package is completed. When will that package be completed?

[Adèle Dion]

Well, at the moment we are very much in the information-gathering stage. Frankly, when this subcommittee decided to conduct this study, we felt we would not be in a position to provide full advice to ministers until we had the results of your study, your report and recommendations.

Equally, the other aspect is, of course, that this involves dialogue with the Chinese side. I think I mentioned earlier that they do agree that the dialogue would benefit from some reform and strengthening, so we are in ongoing discussions through our embassy to look at various proposals for change.