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

[Sophie Richardson]

It's a challenging question.

I think at its core we're talking about people losing their political rights, having no access to a fair trial, being denied opportunities to political participation, and losing their very identity as a distinct community with a separate language and traditions. I do think those are valid concerns.

The motivations behind Beijing's policies in the two regions are somewhat different and have played out a bit differently. For example, in Xinjiang, obviously one of the issues that motivates the Chinese government is a desire to radically reimagine or limit or eradicate Islam. There isn't a comparable factor in Hong Kong. There is also the fact that we can still see what's happening in Hong Kong in a way that we can't in Xinjiang. There are still journalists, qualified barristers and lawyers there, and there is some space for civic activism, but it's diminishing quickly.

However, I wouldn't wait for the one to become the other to try to prevent these outcomes. I think Beijing has offered, even in just the last two or three years, ample evidence of its profound disdain...to gut human rights even in a place that is as internationally connected, as visible and as bound by international law as Hong Kong is.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Neve, it's nice to see you again, first of all.

I have a question about something that we continue to hear, which came up again today: Magnitsky sanctions. If the Government of Canada were to move ahead in that direction, I wonder about the consequences for Canadians in China, namely the two Michaels, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.

If Canada were to take dramatic action along those lines, what is the prospect for those two individuals? What will happen to the two Michaels? It's obviously impossible to predict, but is it reasonable to suggest and assume that it would dramatically diminish the prospect of the release of Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor?

[Alex Neve]

It's nice to see you again as well. That's a very important question, clearly.

I think it is not at all outlandish to be concerned about that, because I think at every turn, be it with respect to what's happening with Meng Wanzhou and her extradition situation or these broader considerations around how governments are responding to the Uighur crisis or the situation in Hong Kong, if there's one word that very often characterizes China's response, it is “retaliation”. Therefore, I think the scenario you are raising is one that would have to be strategically considered very carefully by Canada.

Amnesty hasn't said do or don't impose sanctions under the Magnitsky act. We certainly think it's a strategy worth exploring. We think there are a number of considerations that need to be taken into account, including what you've highlighted, but also the fact that, in our view, to go down that road is inevitably going to be much more successful if it can be done on a multilateral basis and if it isn't just Canada. Obviously the United States has done so as well. It can be done if it's not just Canada as one of the very small handful of states pursuing this, but it's part of a bigger, concerted international response, which I think is the imperative that needs to drive Canada's diplomacy across a whole range of strategies, not just the possibility of sanctions.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

My last question is directed to both Mr. Neve and Ms. Richardson.

Mr. Neve, you talked about your deep concern about Chinese government actions and abuses on Canadian territory. Could you give specific examples of what worries you the most?

I suppose the same question goes to Ms. Richardson, phrased exactly like that.

[Alex Neve]

What worries me the most is that Amnesty has been following this through the coalition for many years now. It's getting worse, not better. That's my first worry.

Second, as I speak with amazing colleagues with other grassroots human rights organizations here in Canada, it's very clear to me that there is a predominance of threats and intimidation against very courageous women human rights defenders, accompanied by increasing threats of sexual violence, etc. That needs to be a very grave concern.

Third is the fact that, even though this issue has been in front of the government for quite a number of years now, we really have not taken some of the simplest steps to try to do something about this, even to just improve coordination amongst departments and agencies. Frankly, I think that's unconscionable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Neve.

Mr. Fragiskatos, I'm sorry. You're out of time.

Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for their important contribution to our work.

With the previous panel, we had the opportunity to look more specifically at the fate of the activists in Hong Kong. This time, we are looking more closely at the influence of the Chinese authorities, or at least at the threats they would pose to nationals on Canadian territory. Either way, we have questions to ask ourselves and actions to take.

I have had the opportunity to speak with the Chinese ambassador and the consul general in Montreal. If I may, I will tell you about that. The following argument was made. Given that the situation on the ground was completely explosive, the purpose of the national security legislation was really to maintain stability in Hong Kong and to ensure that democratic institutions were maintained.

In light of what we have seen so far and the fears that have been expressed, how much faith can we have in such a claim by the Chinese authorities? It is legitimate to believe that stability is the mark of democratic institutions, but how can we believe what they say, given everything that has happened so far, including the imprisonment of journalists and activists? As I pointed out to the Chinese diplomats, if nothing in the legislation says what can constitute a breach of national security, anything can be one.

I would like an answer to that question in reverse order.

[Alex Neve]

I could say a couple of things and I'm sure my colleagues would as well.

Clearly China is not the first government in the world to wrap arguments about stability, security and the safety of society around what is in fact a blatant power grab campaign of repression and intimidation, masked in the rhetoric of national security. I think that's exactly what we have on the ground in Hong Kong. There is nothing about what we are documenting in terms of how this law is being used that would even remotely back up that claim. Everything we've been seeing, especially in these five or six weeks since the law came into effect, is all about a human rights crackdown, blatantly and unapologetically.

[Akram Keram]

I would like to add some comments, if I may. Thank you for your question, Mr. Bergeron.

In terms of how much we have faith that they are implementing the national security law just for stability or social security, what they have done in East Turkestan since the uprising and clash in the July protest of 2009 is a concrete example. They have been using national security and domestic stability as an excuse to suppress people and oppress people. That is exactly what I'm afraid is going to happen in Hong Kong.

Even China mainland's national security law, which was passed in 2015, states very clearly in the beginning, even before article 1, that this is absolutely to protect the leadership of the CCP. These laws, whether it's the national security law, the national intelligence law or, in the case of Hong Kong, its national security law, their primary basis and ultimate goal are to protect the CCP's leadership. With those laws there are no guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of information, freedom of movement or democracy.

Actually, what Mr. Chiu described previously in his speech in terms of what he saw on the democracy side during his visit during the November elections in 2009, that is exactly what they fear. That's what the CCP is afraid of. Those democracies are what they're so scared of. They're scary to the CCP, and I'm afraid that, going forward, if we do not take action, then Hong Kong is going to turn into the next East Turkestan.

[Sophie Richardson]

I'll add very quickly that obviously states under international law have an obligation to provide public security, but laws like national security legislation are meant to be necessary, narrow and proportionate. The national security law and other Chinese government policies are none of those things. Those laws also cannot undercut key human rights commitments or target an entire population.

The Chinese government has plenty of existing laws to prosecute credible threats to national security should it need to do that. Many of those laws are deeply problematic, but policies such as the strike hard campaign in Xinjiang or the national security law in Hong Kong go wildly beyond what is necessary, narrow, proportionate or reasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Ms. Richardson.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Harris, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

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?

[Alex Neve]

With respect to an overview of Canada's history of standing up for rights and democracy over these last 20-plus years, I probably don't have time and actually would, frankly, admit I probably don't have full knowledge to give you a thorough answer to that question.

I would focus on the last year and a half where there have been a number of occasions where Canada's voice has been one of the few to be heard on the world stage, generally with one, two or sometimes as many as 20 to 25 other states in partnership, raising some of these current concerns. It's not been with strident or strong language, and perhaps not as strongly as Amnesty International would write, but Canada's been a leader I think, along with a few others, at a time when very few states are even prepared to whisper a note of concern. I think we've all made recommendations around how that needs to continue, how it needs to become even more multilateral, how maybe we now need to see some more substantial content in terms of what Canada is raising.

With respect to your question about the international covenant, I do think it's a very important piece of the strategy here and particularly as something that Canada should be very much relying upon. I think it is what opens up—and Sophie was highlighting this as well—the various kinds of UN-focused strategies that really need to be taken much more seriously. So far we've managed to get some joint statements, either orally at the Human Rights Council or released in writing on the margins of the Human Rights Council, but there's not yet been an initiative, a resolution, a special session within the council itself. China's always been out of bounds—too much power, too much influence—and that has to give. Using the fact that one of the most important UN human rights treaties governs here is the obvious opening for doing so.

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

Thank you. That's very helpful.

You did mention that there was some talk of the Magnitsky sanctions, and relatively few countries have such laws in place. The U.K. only very recently passed its. In that context, you mentioned the need for a coordinated effort, and the largest group that joined together was about 27 or 28 countries just recently on June 30.

Are you confident that there could be a larger coalition developed to support a coordinated effort to try to change the approach of China towards Hong Kong, or are we dealing with trying to solve the problems of people who need refuge and need safe harbour?

[Alex Neve]

I would draw a distinction between.... The statement I referred to at the end of June wasn't about the Magnitsky act—

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

No, no.

[Alex Neve]

—or sanctions per se.

I think, yes, there probably is more space to build the list of countries who gather around those kinds of statements, as opposed to taking more controversial steps like imposing sanctions. That should be a real focus. Canada is a key multilateral player. We have connections across so many different fora. We really should be doing everything we can to get that number from 28 to 35 to 43 to 58 and climbing, so I do think that's a very important way forward for Canada.

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

Would the other panellists care to...?

Ms. Richardson, perhaps you want to weigh in on that.

[Sophie Richardson]

On many levels, I can't improve on what Alex has just offered up, but I think there is a real moment of momentum here that Canada could really seize upon and many other governments would come along with. If you look at, for example, the constituency of governments who've been outraged, rightly, about the abuse of Uighurs, if you look at some of the governments that are very concerned about not being able to get good information about the origin of COVID, and now, if you look at the constituency of governments who are very concerned about Hong Kong, the slow—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Ms. Richardson. I'm sorry to interrupt. I apologize, but we're over Mr. Harris's time.

We're now on to the second round.

Mr. Albas, you have five minutes, sir.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today, and I also thank my colleagues for being part of this committee. I believe this committee has an important role to play, particularly on this issue, so I'm glad we've restarted specifically in time to deliberate on Hong Kong.

Mr. Chair, when I communicate, I try not to pick on the person but the policy. In this case, it's the underlying assumption that MP Fragiskatos mentioned earlier.

Now, look, the Government of China has two of our citizens. I think it's very clear that it's hostage diplomacy, but we cannot allow ourselves, as Canadians, or allow our government to say that we will not pursue what is right under human rights or we will not do what is our heritage of standing up against bullies and tyranny when we're called upon. I'm just surprised at the response that Mr. Fragiskatos got from the gentleman from Amnesty International, which was almost a shrug of the shoulder and “I guess that could happen”.

Do you not believe that the 300,000 Canadians in Hong Kong—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I'm sorry, Mr. Albas. I have a point of order from Mr. Fragiskatos. I'm hoping it's not a point of debate.

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It's certainly not a point of debate, Mr. Chair.

I just want to put on the record that Mr. Albas is twisting things around and mischaracterizing what I said—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I'm sorry. This is not a point of order; it's a point of debate. Mr. Albas has the floor.

Mr. Albas, go ahead please.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

As I was saying, Mr. Chair, I don't want to make this personal, but I do think we're at a very important point as a country in our dealing with the Government of China.

Do we not owe care to those 300,000 Canadians who are living in Hong Kong? Do we not also owe it to the people who have fought for human rights, democracy and a belief that we can get along when we work with others? Do you believe that, if we allow ourselves to be paralyzed with the thinking that we can't do anything in regard to sanctioning China or even whispering anything negative about the Chinese government, it may cause harm to those who have already been harmed and taken hostage by that government?

I'd like your response, please.