Thank you very much, Chair, and I want to thank the three presenters on very comprehensive presentations and for their presence here today.
First of all to Mr. Neve, it's nice to see you again and thank you for joining us. I appreciate your 10 reasons why this law is absolutely wrong, including the fact that it was abused from the very beginning, from day one, because that is exactly what we're dealing with. We do have a situation.... Perhaps I can ask you this first.
First of all, we did make a pledge at the request of both China and the U.K. back in 1997 to do our utmost to promote the continuing rule of law in Hong Kong and the autonomy of its institutions, and a number of other countries did the same. I've asked other witnesses this. Is there any evidence that Canada has done very much in the past 20-plus years to actually try to secure these things? That's number one.
One thing that's in that declaration and covers something we're talking about here today is, obviously, rights. It was in fact agreed that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would be applied to Hong Kong, guaranteeing the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial, very few of which apply in the national security law that has now been imposed.
What leverage is there for the fact that this is said to apply to Hong Kong? As it was pointed out just a few minutes ago, China has signed the covenant but not ratified it, but China is bound by it in respect to Hong Kong. Is this something that can be used or is that the subject of the UN efforts you're talking about?