Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

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

First of all, I want to say that I feel honoured by your presence here today.

Because of our parliamentary style of democracy here, you will find that oftentimes in our discussions we don't agree with members of the government, even though their interest here in particularly Mr. Celil's case is certainly commendable. One thing I'm very concerned about is ethical trade. Human rights should take a priority at all times.

I've been calling for a special envoy, a parliamentary delegation perhaps, to go to China to take up Mr. Celil's case. Would you see that as being effective?

I would add this: thank you for joining the many voices who have said that we need to push harder at China on the issue of human rights.

As well, you mentioned Guantanamo. How many combatants from your area would be down there?

To Mr. Tohti, I have a question around the dialogue we're looking at. What would you call the main failure of the dialogue?

[Rebiya Kadeer]

First of all, thank you very much for your questions and for your concern with regard to Mr. Celil's case. For me it's very important that Canada puts human rights before trade, because that could really help improve the human rights situation for Uyghurs and in China overall.

You suggest that perhaps a parliamentary delegation should visit China's prisons and other places to find out more about Mr. Celil's case and about the cases of people like him. That would really help with our case, and it would definitely help with the release of Mr. Celil and of people like him, those who are imprisoned for doing absolutely nothing.

In terms of the Uyghurs at Guantanamo, there are different attorneys working on different cases. Initially, for the first five, there was another attorney who worked on their cases. He's still working on the cases of the rest of the Uyghurs there.

There are attorneys working very hard on these cases. Our impression is that they may be released very soon. And if they are released, not as enemy combatants but rather as innocents, I would be really delighted if Canada could give them refuge.

[Mehmet Tohti]

The Canada–China human rights dialogue is the topic I love the most, because of six years of non-stop fighting with the Department of Foreign Affairs, with my friend Tenzin Khangsar. Each year before the dialogue starts, or after the dialogue, or before the UN human rights conference in Geneva starts, I have been invited by the Department of Foreign Affairs for a consultation meeting. I was a member of this consultation meeting on behalf of International Uyghur Human Rights and Democracy Foundation.

There are a couple of reasons for the failure. One is lack of understanding of tricky Chinese diplomatic policy. The Chinese foreign policy is based upon one Asian theory: to hang out the head of the sheep and sell the meat of the dog. Put a different label on something and do a different thing behind the table. That is traditional Chinese foreign policy. Talking from different mouths ends up with different sounds.

It is the same case in North Korea--six-party talks, teaching North Korea how to act. Then after the dialogue ends, teach other tactics, because China is the only country that wants this crisis. It is the only country that doesn't want a solution for North Korea. It has to be continued so that western countries need China. It is the same policy.

The second main reason for the failure was that Canada acted very softly. Until 1997 we used to sponsor the resolution at the United Nations conference in Geneva condemning Chinese human rights abuses. Then the Chinese diplomats came to us and said, “Do not support this resolution. Let's have a dialogue.” Canada agreed. In the second phase, the Chinese diplomats said, “If you'd like to have a dialogue with us, let's keep it closed-door, without going public.” Canada agreed. In the third phase, the Chinese diplomats said, “We would like to improve our judicial system and the police forces. We would like to reform our detention facilities, but we don't have the money. We have money to send a manned mission to space and expand our military, but we do not have money to improve the quality of our citizens.” Canada said, “Okay, let's provide the money.” So Canada was the order taker; China was the order giver. That was not a dialogue. A dialogue is between two parties. It was a monologue.

The Chinese government assigned four or five diplomats whose primary job was to find answers to the possible questions raised by Canadians. “For Tibetans, okay, we are doing well.” If Canada raised the issue of the Panchen Lama: “Okay, he doesn't want to see anyone. He's okay. He's very good.” If Canada raised the issue of the Falun Gong: “It's an evil cult.” The answers were ready. And as for Uyghurs: “Ah, they are terrorists”. It continued for seven years. We spent a lot of resources on it.

That is a brief picture of the dialogue. It ended up that the four or five Chinese diplomats never passed the messages from Canada to upper-level policy-makers. They didn't know. It was just the job of five people to prepare the answers to possible questions. It was not a dialogue. The Chinese government never implemented any suggestions or took any of Canada's suggestions seriously. It was a waste of resources, money, and everything.

Therefore, if there is a dialogue, there should be a mission accomplished. There should be a clear, step-by-step, case-by-case strategy on what we are going to achieve. The Chinese government should know that if we are going to raise the issue of Tibetans, in what timeframe are they going to achieve something? If we raise the Uyghur issue, what is the timetable? What are the steps? What are the obstacles? How can we overcome it? There should be a clear strategy.

Secondly, there should be accountability. That is important. All the bureaucrats at the Department of Foreign Affairs conduct talks with the Chinese government, but the Canadian public doesn't know what is going on, what is said by the Chinese, and what the response of the Canadians is, what it has to do with development. We don't know. So on the format of the China–Canada human rights dialogue, as we've said for five or six years, it is a waste of time. We've wasted a lot of time and a lot of resources. It has to be reformatted.

You have to tell the Chinese government that if they would like to have a human rights dialogue, it has to be a dialogue between governments, not with four or five people. The mandate of the dialogue and the agenda for the dialogue should be part of the Chinese government's official policy. The recommendations should be implemented. There should be follow-ups.

I have a lot of things to say about the dialogue because I'm the one who is frustrated. Imagine repeating the same things for six years. I thank the Canadian Parliament and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the first time the Canadian Parliament has acted. At least I feel that Canadians today have listened.

I love Canada. I am Canadian--proudly Canadian. I want this relationship to be a better relationship, with mutual respect, not humiliation.

Thank you.

[Rebiya Kadeer]

Although I'm still not yet a U.S. citizen, it was the United States' firm, hard-line pressure on China that got my release. As you probably know, the Chinese government accused me of being a terrorist, and not only of espionage or anything like that. China released me after the United States took a very strong stand on my case, saying, “You have to release her.” Then I was released.

I'm really proud of what the Prime Minister said regarding putting human rights first and trade behind—not trade first, but human rights first. That really means a lot to the Uyghur people and all the oppressed people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Tohti in particular, I found that to be one of the most useful encapsulations of the issue that we've heard from any of our witnesses. I would like to invite you to perhaps summarize some of those points in writing and submit them to committee. I think it would be quite fruitful as we prepare our report.

For a five-minute round, we go to Mr. Sorenson.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

I have two quick questions.

You mentioned that there are 17 Uyghur people in the naval detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. What are they there for?

[Rebiya Kadeer]

In 1997 there was a big massacre. To us, it was more like a June 4 Tiananmen Square massacre. It happened in the city of Ghulja, which is very close to the Central Asian borders, and a lot of Uyghurs were executed. It was a peaceful protest, but the Chinese government cracked down on that protest very hard.

After 1997, the Chinese government also executed a lot of Uyghur people. As a result, a lot of Uyghurs fled to Central Asian countries. Because they couldn't return—if they got deported, they would be executed—some of them fled to countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. A lot of them were actually later picked up by Pakistani bounty hunters, because the U.S. paid money for picking up people. These people were picked up and given to the Americans, then the Americans brought them to Guantanamo Bay.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

But were they fighting with al-Qaeda?

[Rebiya Kadeer]

No, they were not fighting with al-Qaeda.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

I got that. I don't understand the language, but I understood that.

I have one other quick question, Mr. Chair.

In the material that you gave us—and I appreciate it—you talk a lot about the Uyghur culture being weak and in need of protection. You speak quite a bit about culture. You talk about how the Chinese government would like to get rid of the Uyghur culture, and you realize that stating “the Chinese government is trying to eliminate Uyghur culture’ can seem overly emotive, and that I run the risk of being accused of exaggeration”, but that's what they're doing. Can you define for me the Uyghur culture?

Take religion. I don't know much about the Celil case, but I do know what is of concern to Canadians. First of all, he's a Canadian citizen. Secondly, he was sent to China and he's being held. He hasn't been given consular services. All those things go against the values that we have here in Canada. But on religious freedom, is it a religion? Is it religious freedom that is not being protected? What could the Chinese government do to protect the culture of Uyghur people? Religious freedom is one of the issues that I'd like you to speak about.

[Rebiya Kadeer]

The Uyghur people have a completely separate set of cultural, historical, religious, and value systems when compared to the Chinese. Even our territory and way of life are completely different from those of the Chinese.

When the Chinese government actually gave us so-called autonomy, the Chinese government promised to respect our human rights, our culture, our language, and our religion. But now, after China's rise, with it becoming this emerging superpower, our language is becoming completely useless right now in terms of education at all levels, because the Chinese government is forcing the Chinese language onto us.

In terms of religion, we believe in Islam. Basically, the Chinese government, after 9/11, immediately labelled us as terrorists. In fact, you see hardly anything that resembles terrorism among the Uyghurs.

As you all know, religion plays a big role in helping the people to keep their morality, in giving them true values. If you visit our homeland today, you will see beautiful mosques and you will even see people praying inside. That's what the Chinese government is basically showcasing, so that foreign delegation people will come and see that.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

That is my point.

One of the recommendations is that you want us to go on a fact-finding mission: “We...recommend that the Canadian government send a fact-finding mission to East Turkestan”. What are we going to see when they get there? When we get there, we're going to see what the Chinese government wants us to see.

The Uyghur people aren't a pluralistic society either. They're a fairly closed Islamic society. Are other religions free in this area? Do you believe in religious pluralism?

[Rebiya Kadeer]

Of course, the Chinese government will do everything to ensure you see what they want you to see. The thing is, if you go inside the mosques, they post regulations on the walls specifically saying minors cannot be allowed, that preaching is, for example, for 30 minutes, and they only use their own imams and mullahs trained by the government, not the individual clerics who train elsewhere. In all of those regulations, if you read them, all those imams and mullahs are supposed to strictly follow government guidelines in terms of their clerical activities.

If you just go to mosques and see people praying and try to talk to a Uyghur, and you tap on his or her shoulder and ask them what religious freedom is, or things like that, you can see the fear on their face. But when they say things, they would say they have their religious freedom and are living their best lives under Chinese rule.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you very much.

We're over our time. I would invite members of the committee again to attend a special reception this evening from 6 to 8 o'clock in the East Block, if they have further questions for Ms. Kadeer.

Madam Kadeer, Mr. Tohti, and your interpreter, thank you very much for your time and your visit to Ottawa.

[Mehmet Tohti]

I have just one more request. I gave Mr. Kenney the Chinese number seven secret document. Please read that document, and you'll find the answer about religious freedom.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

We'll have this translated and distributed to the committee.

[Mehmet Tohti]

Yes, and also there is one paragraph to answer a question about whether or not there are Chinese spies in Canada. There is one paragraph; you just have to read it. It is a very clear mission set by the Chinese government on how to conduct, how to be involved with the Chinese communities, how to train them, how to get the information. There is a signature on that document; it was chaired by Jiang Zemin, the Chinese president. There is the Chinese president's signature. That document was just leaked by Ms. Rebiya Kadeer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you again.

The committee will now move to committee business. We have to be expeditious. This is a difficult matter.

Last week, under future business, you'll recall that I proposed a couple of options, one of which was for us to spend an extra hour on an anticipated motion from Mr. Cotler dealing with incitement to genocide by the Iranian regime. The committee decided, in its wisdom, consensually, that we would not hold an extra hour to do additional business, that we would simply hear from the Uyghur witnesses.

Since that time, Mr. Cotler has furnished the clerk with a copy of the motion, which has since been distributed to you. It's the clerk's view that this motion was not received in time for the 48 hours required by the main committee's standing orders. Because of translation, etc., and the receipt of it, it was not distributed to committee members until yesterday.

Mr. Cotler, I understand, would still like the committee to consider the motion, so I'm looking for your direction, colleagues. We discussed this last week. There was a consensus. I made my preference known, which was to actually study the motion this week, but the committee decided otherwise, and now we have a procedural ambiguity, shall we say.

I am, for the purposes of being flexible, prepared to rule that the motion was received pursuant to the 48 hours' notice required, insofar as it was sent on Thursday night to the clerk. I'm prepared to make that ruling, but it's then the committee's decision whether or not we want to proceed to discuss this matter now and vote on it now or, as we decided last week, delay it until our next available meeting.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I can understand the committee's desire to perhaps put this off. There is a certain urgency to it, apart from its inherent significance, because as we speak a Holocaust denial conference has begun in Tehran in Iran, and President Ahmadinejad has once again repeated his intent for Israel to disappear. We've been witnessing this state-sanctioned incitement to genocide for some time, but it has taken on a particular urgency now, and there are going to be meetings in France and elsewhere this week about this matter.

This is a motion by way of recommendation that goes to the foreign affairs committee. It would be considered there and moved in that parliamentary direction, but it appears to me to be of such urgency that we should at least go on the record today, if we can, by way of recommendation--and it will only go to the foreign affairs committee--with regard to the urgency of state-sanctioned incitement to genocide in violation of the convention on the prevention of genocide, and parties like Canada have an obligation to enforce that convention. I don't know of any parallel or precedent since the Second World War, and even including the Second World War, in which there's been such a sustained and state-orchestrated incitement to genocide.

One example of many that I can give is the parading in Tehran of a Shahab-3 missile draped in an emblem that says “Wipe Israel off the Map”, as the imam screams to hundred of thousands, “Death to Israel” and the like. I think we need to send a message that this kind of state-sanctioned incitement to genocide is simply unacceptable in our age.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I think all members would agree. I certainly agree in principle with the objectives of the motion. Some members might be concerned that they haven't had time to study a very substantive motion, potentially with ramifications, but we'll let the members speak to this.

Go ahead, Madame St-Hilaire.

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

Mr. Chairman, as you so aptly stated, this motion is fraught with meaning and implications. I received it yesterday afternoon, at 12:28 p.m. to be precise. As I noted to my colleague, this is not an insignificant motion. The words “whereas” appears many times, and a number of actions are recommended. The more I read it -- I can still hear my colleague -- the more I realize that it involves foreign affairs as much as human rights. I think we need to look at this very carefully before we come to any kind of decision. To be honest, I think things are moving a little too quickly, notwithstanding the deadlines. Many times we've received documents in English only. Sometimes I don't object, but this motion is weighty indeed and needs to be properly analysed. I don't doubt that my colleague is acting in good faith, but I have no desire to be rushed on this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Mr. Menzies is next.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Cotler's reason for concern. I think that's why both he and I raised it in our first meeting. We wanted to bring forward a discussion on it because of the impending disastrous consequences to the direction this government and this leader are going.

There's a lot in this. I'm very supportive of the intention, but I too would like to have more time to look at it and to understand it. You're suggesting some pretty serious consequences. I mean, he's not a Canadian citizen, so can we even...? I don't understand how we could support this. President Ahmadinejad is not a Canadian citizen; how do we indict him?

There are too many questions in my mind to discuss it at length today, but I agree absolutely, Mr. Cotler, with your concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Please go ahead, Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that if the feeling is that we won't have sufficient time, given the urgency of it, I'll hold it off until the next meeting.