Selection from House of Commons Subcommitee on International Human Rights Meeting of May 1, 2007

---

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=205894&Lang=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&COM=10945

(1300)

The Chair:

Colleagues, we will recommence.

The next item on our agenda is the consideration of the Burton report. As our regular members know, this is an ongoing drama at this committee. In effect, as a result of our various motions, we were all provided early on with the public version of Burton's “Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue”, dated December 31, 2005. There was a confidential annex consisting of supplementary materials that had been excised from the public version of the report.

Pursuant to our various protestations, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has furnished us with an excised version of the confidential supplementary materials, which you have before you. You've all been sent copies, at least regular members of the committee have.

Originally we were told that this would have to be considered in an in camera meeting for 10 minutes, with no note-taking, but apparently the department has now furnished us with copies, so I'm advised that we're not required to review this in camera.

A voice: Is that correct?

The Chair: Could the clerk please say something about that?

(1305)

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Bibiane Ouellette):

I received an e-mail saying that the report would be available and the committee didn't have to look at it in camera.

The Chair:

So we're in a public session. I don't think there's anything to discuss here. We have what we have.

As I said at the last meeting, in terms of the process, this committee has already reported three or four motions to the main committee with respect to this issue. It is now up to the main committee whether they want to make any reports to the House of Commons on this. It's out of our hands, and this is what we have before us.

I would suggest that it would not likely alter any of our recommendations or the content of the report that we submitted to the full committee last Tuesday.

Mr. Sorenson, perhaps you could elucidate for us.

The full committee has received our report, is scheduled to review it, and hopefully adopt it on...which date?

Mr. Marcus Pistor (Committee Researcher):

On May 10, next week.

Ms. Denise Savoie:

Chair, can I get a clarification?

The Chair:

Yes, Madam.

Ms. Denise Savoie:

Our purpose was to compare and make a determination as to whether information was withheld. From what I read last night, it seemed like these two reports were comparing apples and oranges. There are blacked out portions that do not reappear in the last version, so you really have no point of comparison.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

The only point of comparison—

Ms. Denise Savoie:

Was the purpose to compare? If it was, then it seems like a pointless exercise.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

The only point is that now you see and know how much is blacked out. You're right, it does not disclose what's in there, and they have made that clear.

The Chair:

Yes.

Denise, the point is that this committee has had an ongoing dialogue with the Department of Foreign Affairs. This goes back to when Professor Burton appeared before our committee and revealed that some information had been excised from the public view of the report, which had been made available to us by the department.

Pursuant to a motion moved by Madame St-Hilaire, the committee unanimously requested the unexpurgated version of the report, and then this became a complicated matter.

At the end of the day, the committee decided to ask DFA to send us whatever they would reveal, and that's what's before us. It's the position of the department that the blacked out bits are classified. The committee has adopted a number of motions on this matter that have been reported to the full committee. So I think it would not be fruitful for us to spend more time on the matter; the committee has expressed itself clearly on this.

Madame St-Hilaire, you look perplexed or concerned. If you would like to suggest anything, perhaps a discussion, it's in the committee's hands.

(1310)

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:

I hope you're not allergic to the committee.

Ms. Denise Savoie:

Bless you.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:

I want to make sure I have understood correctly. I received two reports: one with some blacked out bits and another marked "confidential".

The Chair:

This is a public report that the committee received at the start of its study.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:

It now has blacked out bits.

[English]

The Chair:

There are blacked out bits here too.

Mr. Marcus Pistor:

There are some other omissions.

The Chair:

Are these blacked out bits blacked out in the public version?

Mr. Marcus Pistor:

No.

[Translation]

That is the version of December 31, and it contains additional information. So it is Mr. Burton's first version.

[English]

The Chair:

So it's not the version we received.

Mr. Marcus Pistor:

That's not the public version. The public version was dated April 2006.

The Chair:

All right.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:

Then what is this one?

[English]

Mr. Marcus Pistor:

According to page 4 of the December version of this report, “Findings based on the classified materials consulted are given in a classified appendix to this report”. I assume that's what this is. So these are some additional findings that are not integrated in its first draft, in the December version of the draft.

He told the committee that about 1,200 words had been deleted or taken out. Some of them are blacked out; some of them aren't blacked out or taken out. So I don't know.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:

You know, we know even less than you do. You say that you don't really know, but neither do we. I am having trouble following.

Mr. Chairman, you seem to be saying that we are turning the page, that it is over. But I see that Mr. Sorenson has changed his mind; he wants to have the report. He said that he would not be present to avoid leaks to the media, but I see that he is happily present today. In the end, there is nothing in this report.

[English]

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

That's why I said that if we were going to continue, and then the department was going to come with the report, with their concerns that there is classified information here that may be a security risk, I wouldn't be here. I don't have to be privy to that information; I don't want to be privy to it.

If the department says that it's intelligence or something else that can hurt something, I don't have to be here. But they've come with the report and with those segments still omitted.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:

Are most committee members satisfied with that?

The Chair:

I don't know.

Ms. Denise Savoie:

That was the purpose of my question.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:

We were given five censored pages, but we are continuing without any problem. Is that it?

The Chair:

It is up to the committee to decide.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:

You can influence us somewhat, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair:

No. I was very clear on that point. The committee did the same with four or five motions.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:

There was a lot of discussion, but there was only one motion.

The Chair:

Fine.

[English]

I take from what you're saying that you're not satisfied.

I'm the chair; I'm in the committee's hands. We have been around this several times. We have what we have. We've expressed our concern about this matter through several unanimous motions. I'm speechless; I'm just a procedural referee here.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

I don't think we can jeopardize our complete report by waiting, fighting, or trying to continue this debate on whether we can have the classified information.

Our standing committee is prepared to look at this report on May 10. I would hope that we aren't going to drag it out here. It might jeopardize going ahead with that report on May 10. We've been given what we've been given. There may be avenues where we can voice our frustration, but let's not let that jeopardize the report.

(1315)

The Chair:

Let me remind you, Madame St-Hilaire, just to be clear, that as you know, the deputy minister kindly appeared before the committee to discuss this matter. At the same time, we received legal advice from parliamentary counsel on the prerogatives of Parliament with respect to production of papers. The deputy minister then kindly sent us a letter last week indicating that his department was prepared to furnish excised versions of the report. We adopted a motion to respond to the deputy minister by way of letter, which I signed and sent last week, accepting his invitation for the members to receive original excised versions of the report, with classified elements excised.

We also discussed last week the fact that we had reported several motions to the main committee, chaired by Mr. Sorenson, requesting unexpurgated, unexcised versions of the report. Those are now at the main committee.

The Clerk:

They've been returned.

The Chair:

Oh, they've been returned, including the last one?

Oh, it has.Thank you for correcting me.

These have been returned, back to this committee.

This committee, as I say—

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

I think we brought that out at the last meeting, didn't we, that it had been returned here?

The Chair:

My view on this, Caroline, is that insofar as the full committee has the power to report to the House and we do not, this matter is effectively now in the hands of the full committee, now that they have the report. If you're concerned, you're free to talk to your counterpart on the main committee about this to raise these concerns when they come to consideration of the report on May 10.

As legal counsel advised us, Parliament has certain powers, but subcommittees do not have all the delegated powers of Parliament, so the committee is quite limited in how it could respond if it chose to do so. I'm just giving you the factual basis of where we are.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

Madame Lalonde and Madam McDonough and the Liberals are very aware of the frustration at not seeing the report. We brought it forward. When we were continuing with asking them to go to the Burton report, that is why they brought it back.

That being said, it's back here, and we still have those dates for the study of this report, as long as it gets back to us.

Mr. Marcus Pistor:

Which report?

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

Are we talking about the draft?

Mr. Marcus Pistor:

The draft report is before the...that's been sent; it's done.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

It's there. So what are we...?

Mr. Marcus Pistor:

This is the Burton report.

The Clerk:

We're talking about the subcommittee report asking for—

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

For a look at the Burton report?

The Clerk:

Yes.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

And that's been sent back?

I would suggest that we have the dates on the China report, but.... I'm just speaking as chair. I have no idea what the others may say. They may want to continue with a look at that report. But if this thing is still before us here, where we're going to drag this out on the Burton report, there is a bearing on the China report. There very well could be a bearing on whether we're going to continue, seeing that the subcommittee is still fighting this fight.

That's why I'm hoping that we can say we're done with it, and we're going to lodge our complaint with the standing committee, but there's our report.

The Chair:

I'm in the hands of the committee. As always, as chairman I'm here to make sure the procedure is fair and followed. If the committee wishes to express itself to the main committee yet again on this matter, that's the committee's decision.

My personal view is that we've been amply clear on this point à plusieurs reprises, and at some point I think we reach a point of diminishing returns on this issue.

As I said, the full committee will be seized of the China report, one related issue of which is the Burton report, obviously. If the full committee wishes to take up this issue, the full committee is obviously free to do so.

(1320)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

As long as we aren't still taking it up here.

The Chair:

No, we've reported the report out.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

Yes, you've reported the report, but as long as this issue is before.... It may not play; we may go right into it. But as long as there's still some dissatisfaction on this Burton thing—because at one point in time, Madame St-Hilaire said that she was not prepared to sign onto that report until she had seen the complete Burton report, unless I've missed something since then.

The Chair:

Madame St-Hilaire.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:

Let's calm down a little, sir. That is what I said, however the report was adopted and it was sent to the main committee. Let's not take statements out of context. Let's leave this up to the main committee.

The Chair:

Last time, I believe we decided

[English]

not to let the procedural issue here hold up the substantive advancement of the report.

Is that right, Mr. Cotler?

Hon. Irwin Cotler:

That's what I understand.

The Clerk:

Yes, it's out of our hands.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

If it's all been signed off, then what are we talking about?

The Chair:

Madame St-Hilaire is sort of asking the question, what should be done? I'm saying the committee decided.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

It's signed off, yes. Burton was part of China.

The Chair:

Monsieur Cotler.

Hon. Irwin Cotler:

It seems to me that the full report, our report, has gone forward, with our concern about the procedural matter.

Now the full committee can have both of those aspects before them; they can determine both aspects. They can deal with the main report, or they might even refer the procedural matter back to us, or I don't know what. But both of those issues should now be cleared before the full committee.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

Okay. Then there will be no holdup on May 10, plain and simple.

The Chair:

I certainly hope there's—

Mr. Kevin Sorenson:

In fact, I'll be honest with you; I wish it was long before May 10, because the whole point of speeding up the reports was so that we could use this as leverage with the Celil deal.

The Chair:

All right. So we have what we have. I hear the frustration from Madame St-Hilaire; it's been expressed by this committee. But we're where we are and we will proceed.

We all have this. Can I suggest that we move now to our last item of business, the motion on Iran?

Okay. Then we'll move to committee business.

Mr. Cotler has given notice of a motion with respect to Iran.

Mr. Cotler.

Comments to a Friend on Canada's Approach to Relations with the PRC

It is becoming more and more apparent that the Chinese authorities are not prepared to reverse their determination that Mr. Celil is not a Canadian. So Mr. MacKay's principled demand for consular access while in Beijng was not likely to yield the desired result. At this stage, I think we should try and finesse the issue by requesting "informal access" to Mr. Celil on the basis that he has his immediate family in Canada and because of the high level of concern about Mr. Celil among Canadians. I wish that it would have been possible for Mr. MacKay to have discussed this with officials at higher levels in the Party than FM Yang Jiechi and State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan. Our message may not be getting through to the people who really count in the Chinese system. Mr. MacKay could have requested this on the basis of his capacity as a senior member of Canada's ruling Party, not simply as our FM. I think that our Embassy's strategy of focusing on the Chinese Foreign Ministry rather than seeking influence where the power really lies in China has contributed to this problem. Our Embassy in Washington reaches out to Congress directly not just the US State Department. We should have a comparable strategy in Beijing.

The Team Canada approach was not sustained once the Canadian PM cleared Chinese air space a couple of days later.

Canada lacks influence in China because we do not have ongoing engagement with the people at the senior levels of the Communist Party who hold the real power in the PRC.

Fragment of my Comments about HR Dialogue on IM with a Friend in Beijing

My judgement is that the Government of Canada would not be prepared to resume the dialogue unless the Chinese Government agreed to substantial changes to the format. This would be quite a big step as it would also lead to demands for the same changes by the other nations in the Berne group. Whether the Chinese side would actually be prepared to undertake a "productive results-based discussion" is hard to say. Their idea of dialogue is that it should promote mutual understanding, but not that it lead to the Chinese Government changing its policies in response to what foreigners tell them in dialogues.

Letter to the Globe and Mail RE: "Horror stories spring from one-child policy" April 28, A9

The side-panel suggests that the on-child policy was "instituted almost 30 years ago under Mao Zedong." The "almost 30 years ago" is accurate. But not about the "under Mao." The Chairman died in 1976, more than 30 years ago. Throughout his career Mao promoted high population growth in China and persecuted intellectuals such as Ma Yingchu who warned against it. The birth control policy could only be implemented after Mao was no longer in charge. Based on my knowledge of the late-Chairman's character, I frankly doubt that Mao recanted after his death, but perhaps there are otherworldly sources of information to the contrary.

Reflections at Middle Age on the Path Not Taken

This morning I received a 'phone call from a friend and colleague from my second posting at the Canadian Embassy in Beijing. At my stage in life, re-connecting with an old friend with so many shared memories from a different time and place is a special joy. It was really a boost to my spirits to start my day with a happy chat and to feel his enthusiasm over his important new job at the U.N. and to catch up with news of his family. I am getting used to hearing from colleagues that their children, frozen in my recollection as elementary school students, are getting married, working for NGOs in far off lands, completing Ph.D.s, etc., etc. So I was not surprised when he told me that his young son had just been accepted by the Université de Montréal to study physics. I expressed admiration that his son had chosen physics, a noble pursuit, and so he wouldn't have to be following us into jobs related to political science.

Sometimes I despair that my political science is not really "science" at all. But that I make my living simply spinning tedious stories signifying nothing of sustaining value for 200 minutes a week in term -- as a kind of intellectual fraud. So I been encouraging my daughter to think of a future career in scientific research, not humanities and social sciences. My attitude is a variation on Willie Nelson's "Mama don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys," substituting social scientist for buckaroo. After all she does very well in science and maths in her Grade 7 class. There is a lot of potential there, I think. Actually quite a number of my close friends are mathematicians specializing in sub-fields like combinatorics and optimization. I am not sure exactly what they do but it seems pretty important and of enduring value to society. My math professor friends to a man intensely love music as well. There is evidently a connection between ability at high level math and appreciation of fine music. I like music a lot too. Maybe I should have studied math at university.

Actually, when I was in my first year at Carleton University in 1972, I did take a couple of courses in the then new discipline of Computer Science. I loved that stuff. The programs were stamped into IBM 80-column punch cards and then hundreds of these things fed into a card reader. Often the programs failed not because of a programming error on my part but because one of the cards had not fully descended into the card punch when I was typing it in, so it wouldn't read properly. Then I had to figure out which of my hundreds of cards was to blame and replace it. Anyway I did very well in the computer science courses. In one of them bonus points were given so I ended up with marks higher than 100%. So, as I was showing some talent for this kind of thing, I was approached about majoring in computer science. Being young and foolish I rejected the idea out of hand which, as I recall now, got the computer science professor's back up a bit. My reasoning was that after all, computers might be of value in doing statistical regressions for social science research, but in the final analysis these computers were just glorified calculating machines. I was therefore certain that there was no future in computers. So I decided to major in ancient Chinese philosophy instead. Later I regretted this hasty decision, especially in the 80s when the micro-computers came out. I just had to have one of those cool machines with the 64 kb of ram, 360 kb of storage on 5.25" floppies, 2.5 mhz of raw computing power and especially the 300 baud modem (I was an early adopter of e-mail having an account at Princeton as early as 1984). And after all I am the same age as Bill Gates.

But when the high-tech stocks collapsed in the late-90s, a number of my computer science and electrical engineering grad friends found themselves suddenly out of work and in difficult circumstances in their early-40s. I realized that that could have been me.

By the grace of God maybe things have worked out for the best for me in the end.

Correspondence with Daniel Bell about the Lysøen Declaration

Dear Daniel,

Thanks for that tip about the Norwegian Dialogue. I will look into it. Canada, Norway and China still jointly host something called the "Plurilateral Symposium on Human Rights" which is an annual regional meeting. I found working with the Norwegians really good. We had a Lysøen Declaration in 1998 when Lloyd Axworthy went to Norway to visit his friend, their Foreign Minister Knut Vollebæk, which committed Canada and Norway to "a framework for consultation and concerted action in the areas of enhancing human security, promoting human rights, strengthening humanitarian law, preventing conflict, and fostering democracy and good governance." (http://www.nisat.org/export_laws-regs%20linked/Norway/lysoern.htm) I am not sure what the status of that is under the Harper Government.

Take care,

Charles

Informal E-mail Correspondence with Daniel Bell further to my Response to his Globe piece (previous posting below)

Dear Daniel,

Actually I didn't mention the Celil case in my response. I am not sure why you feel that it has been tied up with our human rights engagement. As I understand it Canada has asked that the Chinese Government simply to respect the the 1961 Vienna Convention which means they have to tell us the charge and where he is being held, allow us access to him in prison, and allow us to attend the judicial proceeding. The Chinese side has refused by denying that Celil's Canadian passport makes him Canadian although my reading of the China Nationality Law of 1980 is that one he acquired another citizenship then he is no longer Chinese --- they explicitly deny dual nationality (unlike us). They just say "He is not Canadian." But they won't say why or if other people we regard as Canadian may be seen be them as Chinese and if so, who --- (all Canadians whose families came to Canada from China as refugees which arguably could include Adrienne Clarkson for example?).

Actually since my first posting as a Canadian diplomat in Beijing in 1991, I have been trying to gradually encourage addressing those sensitive issues. There is a lot of activity at the superficial level, for example, the Central Party School has just signed an agreement for collaboration with Rights and Democracy in Montreal -- J.F. Lesage just returned to Canada with it yesterday) and the Beijing Party School (where you can visit Matteo Ricci's grave in the back--- definitely worth it for that anyway) also does a lot of exchanges --- I have spoken there twice. I oversaw the "CASS-Royal Society of Canada Democracy Project" which had 18 exchanges and conferences between '93 and '98. When I returned to the Embassy in '98 I became responsible for the Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue. Lots of good will and trust have been built up, but things have not been going as we had hoped 10 years ago. For example we were pretty excited about the village elections in the early-'90s but there is little progress there over 15 years later. I oversaw the Civil Society Program for CIDA starting in '98 but the growth of the NGO sector has also proved mostly disappointing ten years on. I wrote a report for DFAIT about it all that has been the subject of Parliamentary Committee Hearings since October (see http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteeList.aspx?Lang=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&SELID=e22_.2&STAC=1728265) For my report there are details on http://charlesburton.blogspot.com/2007/03/correspondence-with-german-section-of.html but I am not sure if you can get that as a Chinese friend told me last week that blogspot.com has been blocked again. Here are some relevant URLs: http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~cburton/Assessment%20of%20the%20Canada-China%20Bilateral%20Human%20Rights%20Dialogue%2019APR06.pdf
http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~cburton/Rights%20Dialogue.htm
http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~cburton/China%20Isnt%20Listening.htm
My general feeling is that if we wait for the Chinese Communist authorities to agree to meaningful human rights engagement it could be quite a long wait. It has been 30 years since I first lived in China in those bad old days before "opening and reform" started. Now I am over half a century old. I may not have have another 30 years to wait.

"Absurd" is a strong word. We political science professors hold that politics is about choices. China now has a lot more of them now that the per capita GDP is so much higher than it was when I lived in China in the '70s. My feeling is that the growing gap between rich and poor in China is a function of politics. Without democratic institutions the poor have no say in how national resources are allocated. I despair in hearing the Chinese PM say roughly the same thing and make roughly the same unfulfilled promises NPC after NPC. Of course when I lived in China as a student it was all pretty fair due to the planned economy --- we were all poor. But when I was sent to labour in the countryside and my visits to the rural homes of some of my room-mates to Fudan in the school holidays made me appreciate how really bad things can get due to poverty. So this issue is close to my heart. Seems that when the Party abandoned Marxist ideology they also abandoned their commitment to social justice.
Canada only does tiny poverty alleviation via the Embassy-administered Canada fund. And we still do quite a bit in environmental sustainability via CIDA programming. But due to the scope of the problem even if we threw the entire Canadian GDP at it, it would probably just be a drop in a deep bucket. In my view the issues are really only resolvable through systemic change.

Anyway good to talk with you.

Take care,

Charles

Response to Daniel Bell's Comment Piece "Lecturing the Chinese won't promote human rights"

On April 13, The Globe and Mail published a comment piece by Daniel Bell, a Canadian teaching at Qinghua University in Beijing, entitled "Lecturing the Chinese won't promote human rights." This article is flawed in its arguments and unfairly characterizes Canadian Government policy to promote good governance, democratic development, rule of law and respect for the universal norms of human rights.
Canadians continue to be disturbed by reports of human rights violations by the Chinese authorities against ethnic minorities, including the Tibetans and the Uyghurs, and against faith communities, particularly Roman Catholics and some other Christian groups, as well as Falungong practitioners. These are all trans-national communities with large numbers of members in Canada so it is incumbent on our Government to respond to their collective concerns. But it doesn't stop there: Canadian labour identifies with the poor working conditions of their Chinese counterparts, AIDS activists in Canada feel a moral obligation to speak out for their Chinese colleagues who are denied a public voice, and in general Canadian citizens empathize with people outside of Canada who are denied the fundamental entitlements of citizenship -- the right to speak one's mind out, to freely associate with one other, and to be protected by just laws from arbitrary mistreatment by authority.
Mr. Bell suggests that expressing concern for human rights violations in China is "not necessarily the role of foreign governments." He is wrong about that. It is necessary because the mandate of the our Government's foreign policy is to defend Canadian interests abroad and clearly most Canadians have strong interest in our Government taking a strong stance against injustice and oppression beyond our borders. Of course we want to engender prosperity in Canada through foreign trade but our relations with China are not just about trade.
No one is proposing that Canada simply lecture the Chinese authorities about human rights. The Canadian approach is to raise our concerns honestly and engage the Chinese authorities on them. But the engagement has to be effective and not on Chinese terms alone. The answer is not, as Mr. Bell proposes, that we cease to focus "in such sensitive areas" and devote ourselves to poverty alleviation and environmental concerns instead. We would undoubtedly "secure the cooperation of Chinese government officials" if we did so. Without question they would like Canada to provide them with resources to transfer to their poor and to help undo the negative environmental consequences of their rapid industrialization. But these are areas that the Chinese régime clearly now has the economic resources to effectively address themselves. The central problem is that there is lack of political will in China to transfer wealth from the burgeoning coffers of the Communist Party dominated business élite to the still-impoverished ordinary Chinese people they claim to represent. One is hard pressed to find a single Communist Party official whose lifestyle seems in any way compatible with his legitimate income. This while most Chinese people continue to live under conditions of unacceptable poverty with inadequate access to medical and educational services. The fundamental issue in China today remains lack of good governance, democratic development, rule of law and respect for the universal norms of human rights. Canada needs to do a better job in formulating policy to bring these to reality in China.
As a graduate of the History of Ancient Chinese Thought program in the Philosophy Department at Fudan University I have the greatest respect for China's wonderful cultural tradition and years later continue to enrich myself through reading classical Chinese texts and the contemporary commentaries on them. Canada's policy of promoting human rights in China is not because we have any aspirations to be "hegemons or self-righteous moralizers" as Mr. Bell implies. But history will not judge us well if we fall into the trap of moral appeasement that he urges. The Chinese people deserve better from their Canadian friends.

Link to Bell's article

Trade and Dialogue with China

There are reports in the press today about the US complaint to the WTO over rampant piracy of US movies in China. For years video shops in every city in China, located on just about every corner, have stocked thousands of pirated DVDs for sale at the equivalent of $1 each. It has been an on-going issue in US-China relations for well-nigh 20 years. The US estimates the trade loss to them of this one thing at about $2 billion a year now. The Chinese Government response to this is interesting. Tian Lipu, head of their "Intellectual Property Office" said: "It's not a sensible move for the U.S. government to file such a complaint. To do a better job in combating piracy, we need dialogue and cooperation, not confrontation and condemnation." So it seems that "dialogue" as a device to placate the foreigners' concerns is not just a technique applied to our human rights concerns, but as a general principle. The evidence indicates that fruitless "dialogue" can put us off the CCP's case for years. Of course whenever there is a DVD in distribution that shows video of a political nature, such as foreign documentaries about June '89 (these are needless to say of very high interest in China), those are off the market and the shop keepers who dare sell them in the hands of the Chinese police faster than you can utter the words "confrontation and condemnation". There is not much dialogue and cooperation going on between the concerned parties in that case.

Brief Comment on the Lai Changxing Continuing Saga

I have the highest respect for what appears to my untrained mind to be impeccable legal reasoning in The Honourable Mr. Justice de Montigny's decision with regard to Lai Changxing and Zeng Mingna and his related decision with regard to Lai Chunwai, Lai Mingming and Lai Chunchun both dated April 5, 2007. I have posted links to both on my web page. Actually I have enormous admiration for the arguments of the lawyers on both sides and for the judges and others who have written decisions about various twists and turns in the Lai Changxing matter.

Nevertheless I am very troubled that Chinese citizens who have likely committed very serious crimes can settle in Canada without being made accountable for what they did in China. Many of these people are very likely now committing crimes to support themselves as Convention refugees in Canada. But I see no way to settle this matter satisfactorily. I feel quite frustrated about the whole thing. I have spent some much time over these past years fruitlessly mulling over the Lai Changxing conundrum.

p.s. On April 10, the Globe and Mail published an editorial on this matter entitled "What Canada's courts could share with China" (p. A20).

On Attending Bob Edmond's Memorial Service at Victoria College Chapel

I only got to know Bob Edmonds after he had retired from the Department of External Affairs. Some years ago, he had invited me to speak to the Canadian Institute for International Affairs, National Capital Branch. The Ottawa CIIA holds its dinner meetings in the Studio Hall at the National Arts Centre. It was quite a thrill for me to speak there in such a venue and to have my talk attended by many friends who work in the Government in Ottawa. I was seated at the same table as Mitchell Sharp, who had been Minister for External Affairs when Canada established diplomatic relations with China. After I spoke, Mr. Sharp entertained us all by playing the piano. At the same table was Arthur Menzies who was Ambassador in Beijing when I was a student in China and who I subsequently got to know quite well when I administered the Canadian Asian Studies Association in the late-1980s. I have enormous affection and respect for Mr. Menzies. There was also John Small there who was predecessor to Arthur at the Embassy. A really charming man, sadly he died last year. And there was Bob Edmonds. Bob had been at the Canadian Embassy in Stockholm in the late-1960s. Like Mr. Menzies and Mr. Small his parents had been missionaries in China before 1949. He grew up in Sichuan and Chinese was his native tongue. So when Prime Minister Trudeau decided that Canada should establish diplomatic relations with China, Bob was made the contact with the Chinese Government and communicated through their representatives to Sweden. Bob always regarded these negotiations as the highlight of his diplomatic career. He had a sort of historical iconic character to me. But he always treated me with such courtesy and respect, insisting I drop the "Mr. Edmonds" for "Bob." I felt so honoured by his humility.

A few years ago Bob moved to Toronto. We kept in touch, mostly by e-mail over China-related matters. After Chinese New Year I received a nice e-mail from him. So I was rather taken aback to read in the Globe and Mail a couple of days later, before I had answered his e-mail message, that he had died aged 78. At his memorial service on March 31 at noon in the Victoria College Chapel the circumstances of his death were explained in the eulogy by his son. Turns out he had been attending a lecture at the University of Toronto on March 4. During the lecture he closed his eyes and quietly passed away in the lecture hall.

Bob Edmonds died too young.

But I do hope I can arrange the same death when its my time to go.

Correspondence with the German Section of the International Society for Human Rights about the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue

Dear Ms. Lippmann,

Canada began bilateral human rights dialogues with China in 1997. The most recent dialogue was held in the fall of 2005. The same year the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs commissioned me to do an assessment report of the Dialogue. My report entitled “Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue” was released by the Department of Foreign Affairs in May 2006. It is available in English at this URL:
http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~cburton/Assessment%20of%20the%20Canada-China%20Bilateral%20Human%20Rights%20Dialogue%2019APR06.pdf
and in French at this URL:
http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~cburton/Evaluation%20du%20dialogue%20bilateral.htm
My report received quite a lot of publicity in the national media in Canada. An article about this report published on page A1 of the Globe and Mail on June 16, 2006 entitled “Rights dialogue in China blasted as futile: Canadian deplores empty annual ritual.” can be found at http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~cburton/Rights%20Dialogue.htm. An editorial about this in the same paper on page A24 entitled “China Isn’t Listening” can be found at http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~cburton/China%20Isnt%20Listening.htm. There is a lot more relevant information on my webpage: http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~cburton/

The Canadian House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights began hearings on my Report and related matters about human rights in China last fall. They have held 8 sessions about this so far. These can be see at:
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteeList.aspx?Lang=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&SELID=e22_.2&STAC=1728265 The Subcommittee will release a report to Parliament shortly, possibly as soon as next week. The content of that report will presumably dictate if the Dialogue with China will resume and if so in what form. And if not what the new Canadian approach will be.

Yours sincerely,

Charles Burton

Reflections on 500 Days Until the Beijing Olympics

This week the Chinese media have been breathlessly reporting on activities being undertaken to mark that there are just 500 days until the opening of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. The Chinese Communist régime has gone to extraordinary lengths to make this Olympics compare favourably to the recent Olympics in Athens, Sydney, Atlanta and Barcelona. Wonderful new sports stadiums based on cutting-edge designs are being unveiled early. Beijing itself has been transformed by expensive landscaping and infrastructure including new subway lines. China hopes that the 2008 Olympics will mark a signal moment in its national development comparable to what the 1964 Tokyo Olympics did for Japan and the 1988 Seoul Olympics did for South Korea. Excitement is building in the hearts of Chinese nationalists throughout the land.

But what if things go horribly wrong instead of wonderfully right in Beijing in 2008? To ensure that there is no political "disruption" the Chinese police will round up "the usual suspects" of Tibetan and Uighur independentists, political dissidents, AIDS activists, etc., etc. to prevent them from attempting to contact the large numbers of foreign dignitaries and media expected to travel to Beijing for the Games. Their foreign supporters who may come to Beijing will be similarly thwarted from trying to bring the profound systemic injustices of Chinese Communist rule to the attention of the world. But I wonder how the Beach Volleyball competition scheduled for Tian'anmen Square will play out? Will the sunny temporary ersatz beach to be created for the event, Chinese flags of the Great Hall of the People flapping proudly in the background, successfully replace in the collective mind the popular images of burning tanks gunfire and death on the same ground in 1989? Or will be the television coverage of tanned muscular athletes clad in swimsuits punching their volleyballs over the net be overwhelmed by interspersed archival footage of the evening of June 4th at the same place? In their post-victory press conference, will athletes comment not just on the modern facilities they enjoyed in Beijing but also speak out about the oppression of the rights of Tibetans, Roman Catholics, Falun Gong, and the multitudes arbitrarily imprisoned and mistreated, thus bringing deep discredit to their Chinese Communist hosts and deep shuddering embarrassment to the hearts of proud and patriotic Chinese people throughout the world? What would be the political aftermath if the Olympics "failed"? Could things go from bad to much worse?

The coming of the 2008 Beijing Olympics fills my heart with uneasy foreboding.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development Minutes of March 20, 2007

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

Meeting No. 11

Tuesday, March 20, 2007


The Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development met at 11:08 a.m. this day, in Room 701, La Promenade Building, the Chair, Jason Kenney, presiding.

Members of the Subcommittee present: Hon. Irwin Cotler, Hon. Jason Kenney, Wajid Khan, Wayne Marston, Mario Silva and Caroline St-Hilaire.

Acting Members present: Peter Goldring for Kevin Sorenson.

In attendance: Library of Parliament: Marcus Pistor, Analyst.

Witnesses: As an individual: Lu Decheng. Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: Sylvie Blais, Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Cabinet and Parliamentary Liaison.

Pursuant to the motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, May 10, 2006 and the motion adopted by the Subcommittee, October 24, 2006, the Subcommittee resumed its study on Human Rights in China.

Lu Decheng made a statement and answered questions.

At 12:23 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 12:25 p.m., the Committee proceeded to sit in camera.

Sylvie Blais made a statement and answered questions.

Caroline St-Hilaire moved, — That the Subcommittee on International Human Rights report to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development the following motion: The Subcommittee on International Human Rights expresses its profound disapproval at the failure of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Development to comply with the motion of Caroline St-Hilaire, adopted by the Subcommittee on November 7, 2006, requesting a copy of a report prepared by Professor Charles Burton;
Therefore, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights demands the unconditional production of the unedited and original version of the report prepared by Professor Charles Burton, based on Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Letter of Agreement Number 12800 CB of August 1, 2005, on the Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue, no later than the morning of March 26, 2007 .

After debate, the question was put on the motion and it was agreed to.

On motion of Wayne Marston, it was agreed, — That the Deputy Minister of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade be invited to appear before the Subcommittee to explain the Department’s failure to comply with the motion of Caroline St-Hilaire, adopted on November 7, 2006, requesting copy of the report of Professor Charles Burton.

The Subcommittee commenced consideration of a draft report.

At 1:00 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned to the call of the Chair.


2007/03/22 10:22 a.m.

Another E-mail from an Immigration Lawyer Suggesting that Reports I Wrote for the Government Some Time Ago Continue to Be Used in Refugee Cases

Dr. Brock,

I am an academic, and practice law as well, doing pro bono asylum cases. I currently have a case coming before an immigration judge that involves a young man whose parents are members of an underground Catholic church in Changle (Fujian), who were arrested and have gone into hiding. The case will be rather difficult for a number of reasons, and it would be very helpful to the opinion of an expert on government policy toward underground Catholics to bolster the case.You have written two reports that I hope will be helpful to the case, but which I have not been able to locate. The first is listed on your website as the following: A report [from] 2000 about conditions of Chinese nationals repatriated to the Fuzhou area after failed illegal emigration is available on the International Refugee Board of the Government of Canada website: http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/refinfo_e/query=burton/doc/%7B@5%7D/hits_only? Unfortunately the link is no longer active. Do you have a copy, digital or otherwise, that I could include in the materials that I submit to the court? Another piece of yours is frequently cited, but I have not been able to locate it. The title is: Heaven is High and the Emperor Far Away: Report from the Fuzhou Metropolitan Counties of Lianjiang, Mawei, Fuqing, and Changle. The information here would seem to be site-specific for my case, so if you have a digital or hard copy that you could forward, I would also be much appreciative.

Many thanks for your consideration.

All the best,

XXX

Correspondence with a Student on the Human Rights Dialogue

Dear XXX,

I have some information relevant to your questions on my website:
Click here for my report “Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue” released by the Department of Foreign Affairs in May 2006. Click here for an article about this report published on page A1 of the Globe and Mail on June 16, 2006 entitled “Rights dialogue in China blasted as futile: Canadian deplores empty annual ritual.” Click here for an editorial about this in the same paper on page A24 entitled “China Isn’t Listening.”

You can see from the introduction to my report that you are right to think that "China negotiated with other UN countries and offered a bilateral annual human rights meeting to prevent each country from voting in favour of UN action regarding human rights in China." Canada has "temporarily" suspended its dialogue pending the upcoming Parliamentary report on my report and other aspects of Canada's policy on human rights in China. I predict that other countries will likely follow Canada's lead in this regard and the dialogue process as currently constituted will collapse. After that I think we will decide to speak honestly in the UN about our perceptions of China's compliance with the UN human rights norm as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the associated UN covenants, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Then it will be incumbent on Canada and like-minded nations to do what we can, consistent with the norms of international diplomacy, to stand up for those denied social justice in China and to encourage a culture of democracy and rule of law there that will ensure the entitlements to human rights of all Chinese citizens. This would probably include more programming on a people-to-people basis as it is unrealistic expect the Government of China "under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party" to collaborate on such projects in a sincere way as their current system does not allow for effective protection of the rights of individual citizens. So the system that sustains the power of the ruling Communist Party élite would be transformed if ordinary Chinese were empowered with the rights of citizenship. But it is time for democracy in China. Not later, but as soon as possible.

Take care,

Charles