44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 13, 2022 10:00AM
- Dec/13/22 10:24:20 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share a few thoughts and ask a question of the member.
We have members on all sides of the House who are very strong and powerful advocates for issues related to human rights. It is interesting that the member has chosen to have that discussion. In doing very quick research, as the member was speaking, former prime minister Stephen Harper, according to Hansard, never once spoke about Tibet while he was prime minister. In opposition, he mentioned it four or maybe five times, according to my research, but never in government. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to this.
Canada does play a very important leadership role on the international scene regarding human rights. I believe that the Government of Canada has been there on human rights around the world, not only through this administration but also through the Harper administration in certain ways. I wonder if the member could provide any update on whether he believes that Stephen Harper made any sort of statement in regard to Tibet.
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 10:25:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member could have done a bit more research regarding the record of the previous government when it came supporting Tibet. Many important steps were taken in regard to engagement with and support for Tibet. One of them was the former prime minister hosting and meeting with the Dalai Lama. In a constructive spirit, if the current Prime Minister of Canada would be prepared to take that step, I think that would certainly send a positive message.
The Government of Canada should be clear and vocal in its support for the middle way. I am hopeful that this motion we put forward on a number of occasions will pass now and that the House will clearly pronounce that these are important steps forward. There are many other steps the government needs to take. I suggest applying Magnitsky sanctions to officials involved in the violation of human rights in Tibet and supporting Bill C-281, which is the international human rights act.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 10:29:56 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if the member wants to take it in a partisan direction, as he clearly does, I will just say that for this Prime Minister, who clearly loves photo ops, this would be a case where a meeting and a photo would actually be quite meaningful. I would encourage the Prime Minister to take that opportunity, which is one that, as far as I know, he has not taken at any point during his premiership.
However, there are other steps the Prime Minister should take. He should endorse the middle-way approach. He should vote in favour of this motion. The government should bring forward legislation on reciprocal access to Tibet, modelled after bipartisan initiatives along these lines in the United States. The government should take action to protect victims of forced labour that we are seeing targeted at Uighurs, but I believe there is also forced labour that happens in Tibet. The government should make clear statements with respect to religious freedom in Tibet.
The government should adopt a similar framework to that contemplated by a new bill in the United States that would affirm Tibet's history and Tibetans' identity as a distinct people. The government should take real action on forced labour, again modelled after the bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States. The government should adopt Bill C-281, the international human rights act. It should use the Magnitsky act to target officials who are involved in gross human rights violations in Tibet.
There are many concrete actions the Government of Canada can and should take. I have no doubt that, regardless of them, we will hear members like this one stand up and say “Oh, the government is great.” I guess that is his job. However, constructively, there are specific actions the government could be taking around Magnitsky sanctions, around reciprocal access and around religious freedom that the government has not taken and should take as soon as possible.
330 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 10:34:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with unanimous consent, I would like to share my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.
I also just want to acknowledge the death of our colleague and friend, Jim Carr, the long-time member for Winnipeg South Centre. As I look over to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount and see the flowers on Jim's seat at his desk, I am moved by his sense of compassion, his intelligence and his ability to reach across this aisle to make sure we do things together in a productive and constructive way. I try to do that all the time.
I fall short from time to time, but this morning I hope that we in the House will be tripping over ourselves in unanimity and in the sense that we stand together with the Tibetan people and their aspirations this day and every day.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on the subject of human rights in Tibet and the Government of Canada’s support of the foreign affairs and international development committee's recommendation for a resumption of a Sino-Tibetan dialogue process, which was suspended in 2010 by China.
The Government of Canada remains deeply concerned about the harsh human rights situation currently affecting Tibetans, including the punishing restrictions on freedom of expression, freedom of religion or belief and the systematic and widespread repression of linguistic and cultural rights.
Tensions between the Chinese government and Tibetans have remained high over several decades, the last 10 years particularly, which have been no exception. The Government of China continues to intensify its crackdown on Tibetans with increased surveillance, forced patriotic education and acts of protest by Tibetans, which could result in detention or worse. To the world’s horror, there have been more than 150 self-immolations by Tibetan Buddhists during this period.
Canada continues to call on the Government of China to respect the rights of Tibetans, release prisoners of conscience and take steps to improve the human rights situation in Tibet. The Government of Canada has historically supported dialogue to resolve such issues.
We maintain engagement with members of the Tibetan diaspora, including Tibetan Canadians, and organizations that study and support the Tibetan community abroad. Contact with this community remains important to the Government of Canada. It informs our approach to advocacy for rights and freedoms in Tibet.
Canada recognizes the Dalai Lama as the important spiritual leader he is. I had the opportunity to meet him some 40 years ago and continue to be inspired by his intelligence, his wit and his wisdom. Canada bestowed honorary Canadian citizenship on the Tibetan spiritual leader, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, in 2006.
While we know there are long-standing grievances between the Chinese government and the Central Tibetan Administration, which is the government in exile, and His Holiness, Canada has always supported and advocated for substantive and meaningful dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama or his representatives. The representatives of the Tibetan people have chosen to work toward a resolution of these issues that is acceptable to all sides.
Canada’s approach to Sino-Tibetan relations is informed, of course, by our one China policy. Canada recognizes the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China, including the Tibetan Autonomous Region. However, at the same time, Canada recognizes Tibet’s distinct cultural identity, not as an independent political state separate from China, but as a distinct independent identity.
While Canada does not recognize the Central Tibetan Administration, or CTA, as a political governing entity, Canada does maintain informal engagements with it. Recently, for example, Canada welcomed the visit of the sikyong, Penpa Tsering, and his delegation in May of this year.
Canada has a long history of support for Tibetans, no matter who the party in power happens to be. The government began work to resettle some of the first Tibetan refugees in Canada in the 1970s. Over the past decade, the Government of Canada established special measures to facilitate the private sponsorship and immigration of up to 1,000 displaced Tibetans from India. Individuals were matched with sponsors through the Project Tibet Society, with the resettlement of 1,000 refugees completed in 2017. They contribute to our society. We welcome them and we encourage them to participate fully.
The extensive human rights violations occurring in Tibet are vastly under-reported. Access to Tibet remains strictly controlled by the Chinese government. On the rare occasions when official visits are allowed, they are highly scripted.
We were very keenly aware of that when our then ambassador to China, Dominic Barton, was allowed to visit Tibet in October 2020. He was able to visit the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, as well as the Shannan prefecture. While it was a tightly scripted visit, it was after five years of requesting we could have an ambassador get in and talk to Tibetan people about their aspirations. He gave our committee a very full report regarding what he saw and what he believed the Government of Canada should be doing.
In Tibet, heavy investment in infrastructure is accompanied by heavy government surveillance and efforts to restrict the movement of people, religious practices and other freedoms of Tibetans. While official economic statistics may tell a story of growth, the reality is many Tibetans have faced persecution and remain exiled from their homeland.
Canadian officials continue to raise concerns over the treatment of Tibetans, both publicly and privately with our Chinese counterparts, calling on the Government of China to uphold the human rights of Tibetans.
In June 2021, Canada delivered a joint statement confronting and challenging China in the strongest of words on the human rights situation in Xinjiang at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. It was co-signed with 43 other countries and referenced the situation in Tibet.
In March 2021, at the 46th session of Human Rights Council in Geneva, Canada expressed concerns over deeply troubling reports of deaths in custody of Tibetans. As part of China’s universal periodic review at the United Nations Human Rights Council in November 2018, Canada called on China to end prosecution and persecution on the basis of religion or belief, including for Muslims, Christians, Tibetan Buddhists and Falun Gong practitioners. We intend to support the continued challenge of China’s human rights record during its upcoming appearance in 2023 for the fourth universal periodic review.
Canadian officials have advocated directly to Chinese authorities for unhindered access to the Tibet Autonomous Region for UN agencies, academics, researchers and foreign correspondents, as well as ongoing visits by other Canadian diplomats other than our most recent ambassador to China. We have also raised specific cases of concern for Tibetans detained in China directly by Chinese authorities.
The situation for Tibetans in China remains serious and must never be forgotten by anyone in the House, and it will not be forgotten by the Government of Canada. Canada will continue to press for access to the Tibet Autonomous Region for the Tibetan people and speak out for their rights and their freedoms in their homeland and around the world.
Canada remains seriously concerned by recent events in Tibet that demonstrate the urgent need for dialogue between China and Tibetan representatives to reach an early, peaceful and sustainable resolution.
It is for this reason the Government of Canada supports the call for the resumption of the Sino-Tibetan dialogue process and is in full agreement with the report coming from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.
The Sino-Tibetan dialogue came to an end in 2010 at China's behest. Reports indicate that, in 2010, China objected to the Dalai Lama's breaking the preconditions for the talks, which were attempts by the Tibetan side to incorporate into the negotiations representatives from the CTA, which was known as the Tibetan government-in-exile prior to 2011. As mentioned, China does not recognize the CTA. Second, China accused the Tibetan side of attempting to include discussions of autonomy for Tibet rather than solely focused on the TAR.
We need dialogue on these issues. We need to respect the aspirations of the Tibetan people. We need to understand their needs for a unique identity within China. We recognize, with the one China policy, China's principal governance of the country of China. However, at the same time, we know that countries are better when they recognize minority rights and when they continue to call upon all of us to be our best.
In closing, the need for dialogue is urgent. The situation of human rights in Tibet is grave. We will continue to raise our concerns with Chinese officials on these matters. We will call on China to respect its own laws and its international obligations at every opportunity. We support this report.
1492 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 10:44:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to identify one distinction, and that is the distinction between speaking of human rights issues in Tibet and speaking of the political status of Tibet. These are both important questions, and they are distinct questions.
We should speak about religious freedom and human rights for Tibetans, but we should also discuss the reality that Tibet was taken over through a violent invasion. The purpose of dialogue, as outlined in the report, is to establish genuine autonomy within the framework of the Chinese constitution as a way of resolving the question of political status.
I wonder if the member could share what the government's position is, specifically on the middle way approach, on the proposal for genuine autonomy and the political status of Tibet.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 10:47:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's comment references our new Indo-Pacific strategy, which I think is both a strong and brave document outlining our approach to the entire region. It highlights both economic opportunities and cultural engagement, while also reminding the whole world that Canada will always do those things ethically and with humans rights as our principle guiding force. Of course, we mention Taiwan. Of course, we mention Tibet and the aspirations of the people within that region.
With respect to our ongoing dialogue, we will continue to recognize that, for a dialogue to happen, access has to happen.
As I said, it was in October 2020 that Barton, the then ambassador to China, was able to travel to the autonomous region, Lhasa and the Shannan prefecture, and that was one example of how difficult it is to get in there. We need access for Tibetans to return. We need access for academics, human rights groups and independent NGOs to go in, assess the situation, assist and encourage the dialogue.
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 10:48:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could also talk about the specific concern we are hearing from the Tibetan-Canadian community about how the Chinese Communist Party seeks to threaten and intimidate the Tibetan diaspora outside of Tibet.
It has been well documented in various reports that this is a strategy of the Chinese Communist Party. We have had the case of Chemi Lhamo here in Canada and other cases of Tibetan-Canadian activists working on Tibet issues who have faced threats and intimidation. Frankly, I think that the government has been slow to take some critical steps on this.
What is the government prepared to do, concretely, to support the Tibetan diaspora here in Canada and address the issue of foreign state-backed interference in our country?
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 11:01:57 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech made by the member across the aisle. It was a thoughtful speech, full of nuance, insight and goodwill. It was good to hear. Sometimes, members on the other side of the House say all sorts of ultra-partisan things, and it is difficult to find something interesting that we can build on. That is not the case today, and I appreciate that.
I like to see such a proactive attitude. The government wants to find a way to improve the situation in Tibet. I give it credit for that.
I heard my colleague refer to what is happening here in Canada. He said that we have an interesting division of powers and that the government is not entirely centralized. I found that interesting, although we cannot in any way compare the situation in Tibet with the situation in Quebec. I do not completely agree with my colleague on this.
How could he do more for Quebec so that Canada is an example for China on the international stage?
176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 11:03:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the contribution of the member opposite.
With the Constitution of Canada, which dates back over 150 years, and with the changes that were made regarding the province that my colleague represents and all the other provinces, we have a way of managing the federation that gives the provinces a lot of power. That is what the Tibetans are looking for.
For example, Quebec has immigration rights. That is the kind of control and power that Tibet is looking for. It wants the same thing for its economy, culture and religion. If Canada can be example to the rest of the world in conflicts like this, it will help to resolve problems in a non-violent manner.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 11:18:56 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with the greatest respect for my colleague, her implication that this concurrence debate is interfering with the business of the House seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the fact that there was extensive dialogue among party House leaders about negotiating the ending period of this week and how we would wrap up before Christmas, in particular how this concurrence debate would take place. Sometimes concurrence motions are put forward with more limited notice, but this was discussed and will proceed according to an agreed upon framework.
I would respectfully encourage the member to maybe seek some feedback on that from other members about the conversations that took place. I will leave that for the member's consideration.
She did not really speak about Tibet in her speech. Of course there are many human rights issues, I agree, but I wonder if she wants to take this opportunity to share her thoughts specifically on the issue of Tibet and on the political status of Tibet, as the motion seeks to invite the House to comment on that.
180 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 11:20:17 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there were discussions among the parties around our not being interested in doing this debate at this time, that it was not appropriate. However, that does not seem to have stopped the Conservative Party.
Certainly, when I raised the issue of Tibet at the beginning of my speech, I know that some members were not in the House at that time. I would never dare name who was not in the House when I was speaking about this and things that were important to me with regard to Tibet. However, I have stood many times in the House to ask and plead that we not politicize human rights, that we in fact look at human rights as something that we have a moral obligation to fight for and that we have a moral obligation to fight for human rights in Canada and around the world equally.
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 11:22:59 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. Her comments are always insightful.
I would like to get back to China and Tibet. This morning, we are talking about protecting the religious and language rights of Tibetans, who are facing the People’s Republic of China, a vast empire. We are still wondering how to deal with China. What can Canada do to influence China?
It feels that the opposite is happening, that China is interfering in our affairs. Recently, we heard that in Toronto there were police service stations controlled by China. That is something. A Chinese spy who worked for Hydro-Québec, an immense Quebec infrastructure, was exposed. That is significant.
The Prime Minister of Canada had dinner with members of the Chinese community in Toronto and, a few days later, certain members of that community were granted approval to operate a new bank. It seems that China has a lot of influence on Canada, but what can we do to turn the tables, especially in the case of Tibet, which we are currently discussing?
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 11:28:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.
In fact, unless I am mistaken, this is the second report. The report was therefore adopted several months ago, after a meeting with the Rinpoche, the civil leader of the Tibetan administration in India.
Although our Tibetan friends continually repeated that China has no historical claim to the territory of Tibet and that demands for Tibetan independence continue to be legitimate and relevant, they are willing to enter into negotiations with the People's Republic of China. They are willing to find middle ground so that the Tibetan people in the People’s Republic of China can find a way to flourish without being subject to the “sinicization” policy that has been accelerating at a brutal pace since the 1950s.
This report was adopted unanimously by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and should have been adopted unanimously here in the House as well. Why then are we debating a subject that we all agree on? Why must we question the appropriateness of ratifying the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development? It is simply because some political parties keep reports in their back pocket so they can use them, not to debate the substance of the issue, but for dilatory purposes, to delay the House’s work.
We should have had a debate or at least adopted the second report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development a long time ago, but here we are many months later, right before Christmas, debating that report. The House directs its own work, so we could very well have simply decided, by mutual consent, to unanimously adopt this report. We would have fully supported the House concurring in this report, which I think is important and which calls for negotiation rather than confrontation. How can we oppose negotiating? By force of circumstance, we must always be open to negotiation.
Tibetans, who have established, legitimate rights to their independence, are now saying that, if they have to deal with what they have been dealing with since the Chinese invasion in the 1950s, they might as well be realistic about it and try to arrive at an arrangement. How can anyone be against virtue and apple pie? We would have liked to see this report adopted unanimously without debate, but the Liberals and the Conservatives are engaged in some sort of procedural guerilla warfare and, to be honest, I find that extremely harmful.
My colleague from Edmonton Strathcona mentioned this a few moments ago: The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, after being paralyzed for almost two months in May and June on the issue of women's reproductive health, is paralyzed yet again. The Liberals are not leading the way when it comes to completing and finalizing two reports that were almost finished, one on the floods in Pakistan and the other on the situation in Ukraine. I will repeat this simply to drive home how people are setting aside important issues to engage in a catfight, which is totally unacceptable. These reports are about the floods in Pakistan that claimed the lives of hundreds of victims and about the situation in Ukraine; I do not think we need to count the number of victims this conflict claims every day. Rather than taking the 10, 15 or 20 minutes needed to finalize the two reports, the Liberals, who knew very well how the Conservatives were going to react, decided to set the reports aside and focus once again on women's reproductive health.
Let me make myself clear: I think women's reproductive health is extremely important. Women the world over end up in extreme poverty trying to get an abortion with what limited means are available to them, if they survive at all. The Liberal government, which calls its foreign policy feminist, is therefore obligated to openly, directly and uncompromisingly address the issue of women's reproductive health around the world. We, on this side, happen to be feminists. We want to address this issue as soon as possible.
I have already discussed the issue with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I think that the Conservatives are open to eventually calling a ceasefire and putting this behind us. At the same time, they will be able to explain their point of view on women's reproductive health. Right now they are giving the impression that it is not an important issue and that we should not debate or discuss it. The words “contraception” and “abortion” give some Conservatives chills, so much so that they do not want to discuss the issue at all, and yet, it is a fundamental issue, and I think I know that our Conservative friends would agree to discuss it all the same.
I think that when our Liberal colleagues announced that the committee would not finalize the report on the flooding in Pakistan and the report on the situation in Ukraine, but would instead move directly on to women's reproductive rights, it was intended as an affront. Obviously, it provoked our Conservative friends and gave rise to more filibustering at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, which I think is both shocking and shameful. If there is one House committee that should be as non-partisan as possible, it is the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.
I had the chance to reiterate this several times in committee, but now I have an opportunity to say it here in the House. As members know, I served a stint as an MP in another life, and I sat on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development for a long time back then, as I do now. The importance of this idea that the committee should be one of the most non-partisan in Parliament and the House of Commons was proven throughout almost the entire 12 years I served as an MP the first time.
Ever since I came back to the House in 2019, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has been the scene of frankly disgraceful confrontations between the Liberals and the Conservatives. When the Conservatives are not blocking the committee's work, the Liberals are. Either the Conservatives block the government, or the government blocks itself.
In my 12 years as a member of Parliament, I had never experienced a time when the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as it was called at the time, before the name was changed to Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, was paralyzed not for a meeting or two, but for weeks on end, due to partisan games between our Liberal and Conservative friends.
While all this is going on, we are not finalizing the report on the flooding in Pakistan; we are not dealing with the incredibly important issue of the situation in Ukraine, where people are dying every day; and we are not even talking about the important issue of women's reproductive health.
Today we are debating a motion that should have been adopted unanimously without any debate at all. We have been debating it for two hours because the Conservatives decided that, in response to the Liberals' provocation, they would engage in this procedural guerrilla warfare that is going on at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Remember that our Conservative friends have moved 300 motions so far, enough to keep us busy until about 2075.
Will this vicious circle ever end? It makes no sense. Could we not simply sit down, talk like responsible adults, and find a way to move forward with the report on the flooding in Pakistan, finalize the report on the situation in Ukraine, and get cracking on the study on women's reproductive health as soon as possible?
At the moment, none of this is happening because the Liberals have decided to provoke the Conservatives and the Conservatives, who are no better, have decided to let themselves be provoked and react to what is happening. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is stuck in filibustering mode again, which I find shocking, as I said, and fundamentally unacceptable, intolerable even. This committee should be one of the most consensus-focused committees at the House of Commons, and it is unacceptable that it is being paralyzed by procedural bickering between the Liberals and the Conservatives. That is crazy.
I will conclude by explaining why I believe this committee is, or at least should be, one of the least partisan at the House of Commons.
The first reason is very simple. On the issue of values, internationally, aside from a few minor differences, there is very little to separate the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP on foreign affairs. Some may be surprised to hear me say such a thing, but in terms of values, we think largely alike. Apart from a few episodes, during the Stephen Harper era, for instance, I would say that Canada's foreign policy has been relatively constant since the Second World War, regardless of whether the Liberals or Conservatives formed government. In terms of values, aside from the short interlude of Stephen Harper's Conservative government, I would say that there is little distinction between the various political parties, and this affinity should be reflected in the quality and harmony of work at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. That is the first reason I think this committee is normally the least partisan. Given the situation, I would say that this is the reason it should be the least partisan.
It may be surprising to hear such a comment from a nasty old separatist, but the other reason is that Canada would do well to show the world a united front instead of appearing in disarray. My colleagues will be startled to learn that sovereignists see no benefit in making Canada look bad on the international stage. Just because we want independence for Quebec does not mean that we want Canada to be in bad shape and to come off poorly on the international stage.
I could reel off a whole list of reasons, but those are the two fundamental reasons I think that this committee should be one of the least partisan committees at the House of Commons. That is what I believe, and I am happy to reiterate it loud and clear. I ask my colleagues in the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party to put an end to the procedural bickering that is keeping the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development from doing its job.
I am dismayed and disgusted by the feeling of a job left undone. In a few hours' time, when we rise for the holidays without completing the report on the flooding in Pakistan, without completing the report on the situation in Ukraine and without starting the discussion and study on women's reproductive health, I will be ashamed.
1883 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
