Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2016

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I've had the great pleasure of spending some time with both of you this week. I was relating some of the things you've told me to another Canadian who said that's a sad story.

I would like us not to think of the Tibetan story as a sad story, because that implies some inevitability or an inability to reverse it. Canadians should still think of it as a shocking story that these basic human rights are still being violated on a daily basis, and should not become inured to the fact that just because it's gone on so long, that means it has to continue.

Are you finding greater interest in the Tibetan story outside of China and Tibet at this time?

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

On the one hand, yes, Tibet is a sad story. It's a tragic story. I go to these kinds of committees and share the human rights violations in Tibet. But within Tibetan people there is a sense of resilience and perseverance, because we are a proud people with a great civilization and a long history. We can compare with any civilization, any nation. Hence I always say—I'm not trying to politicize it—Tibetans do not fear China, because nowadays there's talk about what would China do. Everybody is scared of China. We say we do not fear them it we have lived side by side with it for thousands of years.

At one time when Tibet was a great empire, we invaded China and occupied the capital Xi'an for a couple of months and imposed a puppet emperor also. This time, it's doing it to us. We have been in close proximity, so we are in some ways genetically adapted to dealing with it and confronting it. When I talk about human rights violations in Tibet, please don't take that as a sad story but rather as a reflection of our determination and resilience.

As I mentioned, in the 1960s, it destroyed 98% of monasteries and nunneries. From the time we were exiled under the leadership of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, we have rebuilt all the major monasteries in India, Nepal, and Bhutan. The Nalanda tradition—the famous Nalanda monastery of India was burnt down 300 years or so ago—was revived in India by exiled Tibetans and we educated hundreds and thousands of monks and nuns in exile. Many of them have gone back to Tibet now illegally. There's a long story of how they go back.

Now we have revived Buddhism in Tibet. The famous Nalanda-based tradition, the teaching, is alive because of exiled Tibetans. So when I say we are resilient, we are fighters. We are. We have proven it, and also in exile. I'm the political head of the Central Tibetan Administration. We run our administration like any other government. We have an education department that runs about 70 schools—primary, middle, and high school—and mostly it's subsidized and free, and we provide scholarships. Our foreign office has 13 offices around the world, including those in D.C., Geneva, Brussels, and Tokyo. We run our own settlements. We run our hospitals and clinics. So we function as does any other government even though we are in exile.

You read about the 60 million or so refugees in diaspora communities around the world, about Syrian refugees, about the 500,000 refugees in Kenya still living in tents after 20 years, but our way of thinking is very different. We are refugees for political reasons but we are human beings, capable human beings, and resilience and self-reliance are the norm and the practice. We run our own thing. We are still here after more than 50 years. I've come back to this subcommittee and I'll keep coming back until the voices are heard loud and clear from Ottawa to Beijing and basic freedom is restored to the Tibetan people.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you, Dr. Sangay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you, Dr. Sangay.

We're now going to go to MP Miller, please.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Dr. Sangay, welcome. I have a quick question. I'd like you to perhaps develop on the middle way and how you see that as the way forward, touching perhaps on two aspects. First, how do you perceive the reception of this approach by the Chinese government? Second, how are you able to do this given the very difficult reality that you face as an administration in exile? How do you achieve consensus and how do you know that this is the proper way to reflect what both the people in Tibet and those in exile believe? I'm just curious as to how your structure achieves this policy perspective.

I guess the first question is with respect to the Chinese government.

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

I think you need both sides to be in the room to have dialogue and negotiations to resolve the issue of Tibet. From our side, we are willing and we are ready. The envoys of the Dalai Lama are ready to meet with their Chinese counterparts. If you look at the past 50 years, you see there is not much reason to be optimistic because repression has been the norm and practice, and it has gotten worse now. One should always remain hopeful that the wisdom will prevail in the minds of the Chinese government leaders and courage will come to their side and they will enter into dialogue to resolve the issue.

Every other conflict area, from Northern Ireland to anti-apartheid regimes in South Africa, to Aceh, to East Timor, to the Berlin Wall, you just name it, at one time was in a similarly impossible situation, but each situation was addressed one way or another. We also hope that our turn will come. I do believe that our turn will come. When Aceh got its autonomy, and Northern Ireland addressed its issues through the Good Friday Agreement, and the Berlin Wall came down, and recently when Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest and accepted a Nobel Peace Prize and is now the leader of the Burmese government, we always think we will be next.

I've come here to the subcommittee to seek your support as well as good karma so that we can transmit those to Beijing, and I hope we'll be the next in line given all the success stories that have happened with all these major international events that we have seen so far.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Just to re-centre what I had asked, how do you believe this approach, the middle approach, will be received by the Chinese government? Second, how do you achieve a consensus that reflects the wishes of your people both in Tibet and abroad, in exile?

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

Tibetans inside Tibet will accept the middle way approach as the policy. They will support it also, because His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the undisputed leader of the Tibetan people, inside and outside. The Chinese government denies that sometimes, but if they are willing and open, we could have a referendum in Tibet and give them the choice of whether or not to accept the middle way policy. I often say this. The middle way approach is envisioned by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, hence Tibetans and Tibet fully support it.

One clear bit of evidence is that the secretary of the Communist Party in Tibetan areas is the most powerful position, but the party secretary of the Communist Party of the Tibet Autonomous Region, for example, has never been a Tibetan. It's always been Chinese. Recently, the party secretary was promoted. He was third in line behind two Tibetans, but the Han Chinese was promoted to the position of party secretary. After party secretary, there's a deputy party secretary and the governor, who are Tibetans. Once they retired from the official position, the very next day, they wrote to the Chinese presidents Jiang Zemin, Deng Xiaoping, and Hu Jintao. They said His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the solution to the Tibet issue.

I am talking about the highest Tibetan office-holders. They all have said in writing to the Chinese government and Chinese leaders that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the solution, that he is not a problem, and that the Chinese government should listen to him and talk to him. This is in writing. So clearly, if the highest Tibetan Communist party members have explicitly written to the Chinese government saying his Holiness is the solution, clearly, the people who are religious, who have complete loyalty to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, will accept the middle way approach.

The middle way approach is very much provided for in the Chinese constitution of 1982 and the Minority Nationality Act of 1984, so we are saying that if the Chinese government implements its own laws, we will take that as autonomous. So it is as reasonable and as moderate as one can get. The Chinese government should have no objection whatsoever. If it objects, it's objecting to its own constitution and its own laws. That way, the middle way, is acceptable to Tibetan people inside and outside and should be acceptable to the Chinese government also.

Another piece of evidence is that of the universal plea of the 145 self-immolators who burned themselves was for the return of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Tibet and for freedom for the Tibetan people. That's the universal plea, so when Tibetans are dying, burning themselves, and uttering that they want to see the return of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Tibet, it's clear evidence that Tibetans and Tibet accept His Holiness the Dalai Lama as their leader and not the Chinese government.

There is no competition that if a referendum were held to choose between the Chinese president and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, I think 99.9% of Tibetans would support His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Sometimes I also say, given my elected position, that any day, if the Chinese leader, whoever is there, wants to have an election, I am willing to be the other candidate, and I'm pretty sure I'd win hands down, because ultimately Tibetan people would prefer to have a Tibetan guy administering the region rather than a Chinese person. That's what I believe, and if the Chinese government doesn't accept it, then Canada can be an observer and organizer of an election and we can have an election.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much.

MP Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

One of the things we established when we were in government was the Office of Religious Freedom. Ambassador Bennett was providing leadership around the world, including with the international working group. The government has chosen to shut that down, but it has set up a departmental office with a budget of $15 million. We're told $5 million of that has been given to the United Nations already, but it's also exploring partnerships. There's $10 million available there. Would you be interested in a partnership with the government, and if you were, what would that look like? What could we recommend to the government that would work for you?

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

I think you are asking an obvious question, and I think the answer is resoundingly yes.

As per the conditions and as per the requirements, I think the Central Tibetan Administration, if allowed, and if not, a Canadian-based NGO, could apply for the grant and if granted it would be of major use, definitely, because we have Canadian-based NGOs that advocate for human rights for the Tibetan people, for religious freedom for the Tibetan people, and they will follow all the norms and conditions required. I'm pretty sure they will be eligible.

Whether the grant is granted or not is up to the authorities to decide.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Perhaps that's something we can take up as a committee. I won't speak for everyone here but I think I can speak for our side of that equation.

In 2015 the government enacted some national security laws, and people have said that they're basically vague, they're overreaching, and they violate human rights. I'm just wondering if you can tell us a little bit more about the application of those laws and what those have meant for the people of Tibet.

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

Often I say that, if you really want to understand China, you have to know the Tibetan narrative. Unless you understand the Tibetan story, you will not understand China, because the National Security Law that you mentioned actually already—before it was passed, before it was adopted—was practised in Tibet. So whatever happens in Tibet first is later implemented. I can give you a few other examples as well.

Canadian-based NGOs or American-based NGOs, any NGO that had some humanitarian projects like education or health were all removed and banned from Tibetan areas for “national security reasons”. If you had an NGO from Canada—and I don't want to name any—that had projects in Tibet, it was told, “Now you can't do that” because opening up schools and giving textbooks to Tibetan children was seen as a threat to the national security and it was prevented.

After the adoption of the National Security Law, it's now being implemented in civil society in China in general with regard to all the religious organizations and NGOs—so you can clearly see the restrictions and repression that are going on based on this law. That is because “security” is translated or interpreted very liberally. If three Tibetans come together to meet, the Chinese government can say, “We disallow the meeting” and then they will label these people as splitists.

Recently I had the privilege of meeting with the honourable Speaker of the House of Commons in the U.K. That very day, I think, the Chinese embassy there complained to the foreign ministry and then the next day the spokesman of the Chinese foreign ministry complained. There was a long article in the Xinhua news agency, because those were labelled as splitist activities. I was just meeting a speaker of a sovereign country. How can that be a splitist activity?

They labelled me, even though I was outside. You can imagine what is going on inside China and in Tibetan areas.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Can you tell us, in terms of the human rights violations, which places the international community should really be paying attention to? There is a bad general situation, but in terms of human rights, where specifically should we be focusing?

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

As I said, the human rights violations are very widespread.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes.

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

There is political repression. If three Tibetans come and shout a slogan, they will be arrested. There is denial of religious freedom. Even having a photograph of His Holiness the Dalai Lama could land you in jail.

There is cultural assimilation. For example, in Canada bilingualism is encouraged and allowed, let's say in Quebec, but in Tibet the language of instruction at the university level, high school level, and middle school level is Chinese. Tibetan is not the language of instruction. Chinese is the language of instruction.

As well, as I shared with you, there is the destruction of the environment. Tibet has 123 or 124 kinds of minerals. I think the second-largest copper mine in the whole of China is in Tibet. There is gold, borax, copper—you name it. All of this is exploited by the Chinese government.

The human rights violations are so widespread that one could pick any of them, but I would urge your committee to focus on—since it is of urgent concern to us—the destruction of the Larung Gar monastery, because we think this is a precursor to much more destruction and demolition of monasteries and nunneries, and then very repressive policy on religious freedom will be introduced and that will be quite draconian.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

We've seen this destruction of religious houses of worship in other places in China as well over the last couple of years.

China has lots of different types or structures of government or whatever, but you talked about autonomy. Is there another area of China that already has autonomy similar to what you're talking about?

[Dr. Lobsang Sangay]

Yes, you can divide China into areas of Han Chinese, Tibetans, and other “minorities.” In the Chinese area, for example in Hong Kong, there is one country with two systems there. In Macau, there is one country with two systems. Shanghai has a special economic zone. Shenzhen has special economic zones.

The Chinese government gives this excuse, “We can't grant autonomy to Tibetan people because that will encourage others to seek autonomy.” But in their own areas, they have created so many autonomous zones from an economic point of view. For example, the province of Sichuan was a province of 100 million people. They carved out Chongqing municipality, with 20 million people, and created another special administrative area. They even carve out even geographic areas, and they grant very many autonomies within China to Chinese people. When it comes to Tibetans, they say, “You are not entitled.” Hence there is a racial element in the implementation of Chinese laws as well.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Mr. Sweet, you have a 30-second question and a 30-second answer, and then we're going to move to MP Khalid.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Chair, actually I have really more of a statement.

I just think, Chair, and most people have probably observed this, that if you remove people's language, if you remove the religion that they were born into and grew up with, and then you make it illegal for even pictures of their leaders to be around.... I don't know of a clearer representation of an effort to totally eliminate a culture than this practice by the People's Republic of China towards Tibet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

MP Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much for coming in today and expressing your concerns. They are very well heard in this room.

Just to follow up on what MP Sweet said, can you tell us a little bit about what is happening at the grassroots level by Tibetans to make sure that their culture is alive and well within Tibet? What kinds of initiatives are being taken by Tibetans to keep their culture alive?