Canada-China Relations Committee on Aug. 11th, 2020

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you for coming and speaking so clearly on human rights.

Yes, I will be sharing my time with Mr. Dubourg.

Anyone can answer my questions.

Regarding the national security law arrests of student activists over social media posts, Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific regional director Nicholas Bequelin said:

That four young people could potentially face life imprisonment on the basis of some social media posts lays bare the draconian nature of the national security law. The idea that anybody can now be jailed for expressing their political opinion on Facebook or Instagram will send a chill throughout Hong Kong society.

We're learning that these students have had their computers and phones seized and, under this new law, they can be compelled to answer questions. Can you comment further on the reach of this law and the risk it poses for the freedoms of Hong Kong's citizens? Also, will this mute and halt the momentum of protests?

[Alex Neve]

I think the reach is far-reaching, and it is exactly in its purposefully vague terminology that scenarios such as the one that we've spoken about in the press release are playing out. These are not just predictions as to what might happen. This is actually how things are playing out.

I guess the one thing I would highlight is, while of course we're deeply concerned because of what has happened to those four individuals—and Amnesty and Human Rights Watch and other organizations will certainly be following closely—I think equally we're very concerned about what we often refer to as the chill that it unleashes.

It's not only the penalties and punishments that are going to follow for the four individuals here. It's the thousands and thousands of others who will self-censor, who won't share their views on social media and who won't display public banners because they've heard about what happened to those four, and they're just very, very fearful. That is really the overarching intention of this kind of an initiative.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

How can Hong Kong still show their dissent? It's going to be difficult.

[Sophie Richardson]

I think some of the most evocative gestures since the law went into effect were things like people going out onto the street or members of the LegCo holding up blank pieces of paper as a gesture to say, “We're speaking, and we're not going to use the very words that might get us arrested, but we're not going to pass up the opportunity to make this gesture.”

I also want, very quickly tying a few threads together, to remind this group that we wrote last year about one of your colleagues, MP Jenny Kwan, whose own WeChat posts about the Hong Kong pro-democracy protests were censored.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Going on another limb here, can you tell us about the status of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants seeking to exit Hong Kong at this time, including the difficulties or barriers they may face? Is there a risk of their being arrested under this new law while trying to leave Hong Kong?

Ms. Richardson.

[Sophie Richardson]

We don't have particular figures of how many people are trying to leave, but I think, if I may speak very broadly here, people are forced to make some very difficult calculations about how the law is going to affect their lives, whether leaving might draw unwanted attention to family members who remain behind, whether they have the means to emigrate and what they would do in some other country.

I think it's also often a very difficult choice for people to decide to claim asylum as opposed to trying to find some sort of status that keeps open the door to being able to return, if that's desirable for whatever reasons. I think in that sense, some of the points that Alex made earlier about clarifying what opportunities are available to people, what status is on offer, what could be expedited and whether it's essentially a one-way street would be extremely helpful to people thinking through the trade-offs that they're going to make.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

We only have 30 seconds.

Mr. Dubourg, you have the floor.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to take the time to greet the witnesses and thank them for their presentations and the work they do.

Here's my concern. Mr. Neve talked about recommendations, and the people who were on the previous panel talked about the threats they were receiving. Ms. Richardson has proposed the creation of a cabinet position.

Mr. Neve, could you briefly tell us whether that could be helpful?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Dubourg, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but unfortunately there's no time left for the answer.

Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A few moments ago, I referred to the incarceration of Jimmy Lai. That is extremely worrisome.

Earlier, we saw that the GAFA companies, the big web companies, had reacted to the tightening of control in Hong Kong. For example, Apple backed down, while Facebook seemed to want to keep its operations as they were.

Beyond the controls already carried out by the Chinese authorities on the various social media, should we expect more controls in the coming days and weeks? Will we see more compromises from the GAFA companies currently operating in Hong Kong?

[Sophie Richardson]

I'm very sorry. I'm going to have to defer that question to someone who speaks French. I don't, and I'm not getting the translation.

Alex.

[Alex Neve]

I didn't hear. Did you comment, Sophie?

[Sophie Richardson]

I was hoping that somebody who speaks French could answer that question. I don't speak French and I'm not getting the translation, so I'm not precisely sure what the question was.

[Alex Neve]

It's a concern about whether we're going to see more and more intensification of the crackdown through social media, Facebook, etc.

I think the short answer is yes. That's clearly one of the very specific intentions of having such a broad law as this. I think we're already seeing that some of the initial moves are absolutely going after people. The case of the four young activists that was highlighted in Ms. Yip's question, for instance, is about Facebook posts. We're going to see more and more of that, and it's very concerning.

[Sophie Richardson]

I agree entirely with Alex on this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I simply want to point out that my time has been reduced because of interpretation problems. I did not think you were going to cut it from the response time of the various witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I added about 15 seconds, Mr. Bergeron.

In my opinion, that was well within the time it took. I have done my best to be fair to everyone.

Now we have Mr. Harris.

You have two and a half minutes.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to put a general question to both Mr. Neve and perhaps the others.

China, of course, has a terrible reputation for its improper judicial system and for a lack of fairness and respect for human rights generally. Are we dealing with something quantitatively different in the case of the special security law for China that requires special additional attention, or is it the behaviour itself that's taking place that we need to be active about?

The second questions follows up on Mr. Neve's suggestion about the inadequate enforcement of laws within Canada for interference. Do we need a legislative response as well as getting the authorities to be more forceful in the coordination of matters? Mr. Mulroney, for example, has suggested a registry of foreign agents, etc. If you'd care to comment on that, it would be appreciated.

[Alex Neve]

With respect to the question about whether law reform is needed regarding concerns here in Canada, in the report I'm going to be sending to you that is one of the things we've signalled. The report didn't come down one way or the other as to whether a specific legal reform is needed. We did point to some examples from other jurisdictions, including Australia, for instance, where there are laws beyond what we have in Canada that would perhaps open up greater recourse for individuals who have been through this and, therefore, I think that's worth exploring.

With respect to whether this national security law is a game-changer or qualitatively different, I think it obviously is a game-changer for the people of Hong Kong. However, the backdrop is that on mainland China national security laws have existed for a long time and I think all three of our organizations have filled reports with all of the violations that stem from that.

[Sophie Richardson]

I'll just add that the national security law in many ways is not distinct if you're comparing it to other mainland laws. But let's recall that Hong Kong is a jurisdiction that has long enjoyed an independent, highly professional judicial system that protected the rights to a fair trial and had respected prosecutors and a reliable, incredible police force gathering information. A lot of that began to change in the last couple of years, and the NSL really guts that system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

We have five minutes remaining, and that goes to Ms. Alleslev.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

My question is to Ms. Richardson, because I, too, find the cabinet-level position suggestion really critically important.

Could you give us some more specifics about what your concept is, and maybe even go so far as to give it a title so that we can have a short-form discussion about what that might be?

[Sophie Richardson]

I haven't gotten around to a title yet. I promise to follow up on that.

I think the idea really is reflected in many threads of our conversation here. We are no longer just talking about human rights violations in Hong Kong, the threats that Uighurs face or the challenges for civil society in China. We are also talking about the kinds of abuses that take place as a result of Chinese government policy or action in other countries, including Canada.

There isn't a focal point in the Canadian government or any other. Let me be clear: This isn't a criticism of Canada and it's not a suggestion that we would make to only Canada. It's one that we'll be driving with a number of different governments, especially for the governments that have incredibly complex, deep, thick ties, not just with the Chinese government, but those that have communities of people who are of Chinese descent or people who are interested in China.

I think governments have failed to recognize that those people are under threat and that there are other kinds of threats to people in their own countries as a result of Chinese government policy. As Alex and Amnesty have very eloquently documented—and as we've experienced in taking up certain kinds of issues ourselves—it's very hard for somebody who is standing in Canada, who is experiencing Chinese government harassment, to figure out where they're supposed to go with that. To shrug or pass the buck from one agency to the next is not a gratifying solution and, really, I think the failure to respond only encourages more of this kind of behaviour.

We've done a lot of work about universities in Canada, the U.S., Australia and the U.K., and their capitulations to Chinese government pressure, or it's probably more accurate to say, their failure to stand by their principles of academic freedom and independence when there is significant Chinese government or state-owned enterprise money at issue or when critical revenue streams that come in the form of international students from China are at issue. There is a lot of deferring and saying, well, maybe we'll work this out, or the problem will change over time, which is, I think, generally the problem with lots of governments and their policies with China over the last 20 years. The people have hemmed and hawed and hedged and did not really grapple with the fact that this is a highly abusive authoritarian regime that does not keep abuses at home and that is increasingly carrying out these operations overseas, including weakening the institutions that protect rights worldwide.

I would envision a system that pulls all these threads together and looks at domestic, bilateral and multilateral responses to all of these different kinds of problems.