Evidence of meeting #11 for Canada-China Relations in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was kong.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michael C. Davis  Professor, Weatherhead East Asia Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center, Columbia University
Benedict Rogers  Co-founder and Chair, Hong Kong Watch
Cheuk Kwan  Immediate Past Chair, Toronto Association for Democracy in China
Avvy Yao-Yao Go  Barrister and Solicitor, Board Member, Toronto Association for Democracy in China and Clinic Director, Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic
Annie Boyajian  Director of Advocacy, Freedom House
Samuel M. Chu  Founding and Managing Director, Hong Kong Democracy Council
Jerome A. Cohen  Professor and Faculty Director Emeritus, U.S.-Asia Law Institute, New York University School of Law

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Zann.

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

11:50 a.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to our witnesses for their extremely enlightening testimony.

There is so much to say and so many questions to ask about the extradition law and the fact it has not been adopted in Hong Kong. In a way, that law has been bypassed by the adoption of a law with much greater scope, the law on national security. It can be applied extraterritorially. In addition, local authorities have every latitude to determine what constitutes a breach of national security. We could potentially come back to the status of the joint declaration treaty and the resignation of the director of public prosecutions. Basically, a whole host of questions may arise.

I would like to continue along the same line of questioning as Mr. Genuis, about the activists leaving and how those departures could be made easier by various Western democracies. Clearly, Mr. Genuis was bringing up the possibility that the Chinese government may respond by a large-scale hostage-taking policy. The possibility has also been mentioned that the Chinese government may well want to prevent the departures.

However, I would like to go back to two of Mr. Rogers' statements that seemed contradictory to me. During his presentation, he seemed to indicate that receiving activists was supposed to be a measure of last resort, leaving a sufficiently large force in place in order to continue the struggle for democracy in Hong Kong. But, when replying to Mr. Genuis, he said that we had to make it possible for activists to leave immediately while there was still time to do so.

I would like to let Mr. Rogers be more specific with his thoughts as to whether we have to welcome militants quickly, which may well have the opposite effect of leaving Chinese authorities with a free hand in tightening their authority over Hong Kong.

11:55 a.m.

Co-founder and Chair, Hong Kong Watch

Benedict Rogers

Thank you very much.

I fully accept that it's an incredibly difficult dilemma. That's really what I was trying to illustrate in my statement. In principle, this course of action should be a last resort. We should be trying to do everything possible to prevent further deterioration of the situation. On the other hand, as I said in my statement, we have to recognize that Hong Kong is now in very grave danger. There are individuals who are currently in very grave danger.

My direct answer to you is that we should be doing both. We should be trying to use whatever tools we have to put pressure on the authorities to stop this erosion of freedoms, but simultaneously, for those who need to get out now and who might potentially be prevented from doing so if the situation deteriorates further, we should be trying to get them out now. Ultimately, individuals will make their own decisions as to whether they want to stay and continue the struggle or get out. For those who do need to get out, I think not only Canada but also the free world should be working together to coordinate a plan to enable them to do so. That might involve some form of asylum for some, but it may also involve study and young talent programs and other schemes that together we could come up with.

I hope that answers the question.

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC

Thank you so much, Mr. Rogers.

Perhaps we could ask Ms. Go to complete that answer, if she wishes.

11:55 a.m.

Barrister and Solicitor, Board Member, Toronto Association for Democracy in China and Clinic Director, Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic

Avvy Yao-Yao Go

I totally agree that we should do both at the same time. We have been advocating for human rights in China for years, and we will continue to, as refugees from China and as those who have decided to flee China. So we should do that.

Of course, if we do want to allow people from Hong Kong to come here, then sooner rather than later would be better. That's not only for them; that's also for us, in part because of the danger that some of the witnesses have mentioned about the hostage situation, that China is holding Canadians as hostages in Hong Kong.

I would certainly urge that we do now what is needed to be done. Given that there is a travel ban, the consulate has to take immediate action and even in some cases provide travel documents for those whose documents have been seized by Hong Kong.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

You have 30 seconds left, Mr. Bergeron.

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It would not be respectful to give the witnesses so little time to answer.

Let us move to the next round of questions.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

I appreciate that very much.

Mr. Harris, you have six minutes.

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. It's very difficult to use six minutes to respond adequately and to ask questions about all of the representations that have been made. They're quite valuable, and I wish we had a full session with each of you separately.

Can I ask you, Professor Davis, for clarification on one of the consequences of the new law? You referred to collusion with foreign governments. My understanding of the law is that it's broader than that, and that in fact it refers to collusion with foreign governments or foreign interests. Would you clarify that for me, please?

Second, can you tell us whether after the passage of this law, from a constitutional perspective, there is any light, or any distinction left, between the situation in Hong Kong vis-à-vis the law and what applies in mainland China with respect to security and sedition and these other obligations? Are we now talking about not two systems but only one system for the whole country?

Noon

Professor, Weatherhead East Asia Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center, Columbia University

Michael C. Davis

Thank you.

To the first question, the answer is yes. It doesn't just apply to reaching out to foreign governments. It can even be aiding and abetting any kind of thing with foreign individuals. I recently testified in Hong Kong before the law society and I could point out to them that I am a foreign individual. There were many pro-Beijing figures on that panel. I said, you guys are, in effect, colluding with a foreign individual right now because if I say something that incites hatred towards Hong Kong or China, then you are a part of that collusion with me. Unfortunately, this committee could also be tarred with that.

When it comes to the mainland national security law versus Hong Kong's, oddly the Hong Kong one, in some ways, is worse because the mainland has a kind of principle that its national security law reaches foreign activity only if that foreign activity violates the laws of the country where it takes place, but under the Hong Kong national security law that's been enacted it doesn't matter that what we're saying here today is not violating Canadian law—or American law, for those of us sitting in the United States—it still reaches this behaviour. So if we actually advocate sanctions at this moment, we could be charged under that law, regardless of the fact that we are exercising our freedom of expression.

I think the other thing is that there is a lot of concurrence as well with the mainland system, because these officials now from the mainland are actually coming from the mainland state security and public security bureau. There are apparently going to be hundreds of them, so there is a kind of secret police and what they say and do is all secret. Even with regard to the charges against the people arrested this past week, we are really not clear on what the factual predicate is for the charges. We only have rumours based on the questions that were asked of them when they were interrogated.

This secrecy and this idea that officials are above the law, and whatever treatment you can have.... I didn't mention, because I didn't have time, that under this new law in Hong Kong if these security officials from the mainland want to, they can render you to the mainland for trial, so that if Hong Kongers and foreigners in Hong Kong, including Canadians who happen to be in Hong Kong, are arrested under this law and the mainland officials decide they want to bring them to China to try them, they can do so, which is why, of course, Canada terminated the extradition law.

Noon

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Thank you.

Perhaps I'll end up using my six minutes, but I have another question for you. In relation to the fact that the situation with the Basic Law, the situation of Hong Kong, is based on what's been called a treaty that's been filed in the United Nations treaties, does the U.K. have any special means of enforcing that? Is it a breach of that treaty, a breach of international law per se, or are we looking at other things, like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

Noon

Professor, Weatherhead East Asia Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center, Columbia University

Michael C. Davis

It's a breach of all of the above. The problem with the Hong Kong joint declaration is that there is no provision for resolving disputes. Since China has not acceded to the world court, the only form of response can be diplomatic, which is one way of resolving international disputes, so that's the case.

I would say not just the U.K., but also Canada, because all of these countries were asked to rely on China's commitments under the joint declaration on the Basic Law as a condition of Hong Kong's special treatment, so once China stops adhering to that, they have every reason to complain. This is not purely an internal affair. There's a kind of partnership over how Hong Kong would be treated, and the partnership is being violated.

Noon

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Thank you very much for that clarification, because that gives a strong basis for Canadian action on this with that context of Canada's support for the agreement and its actions since that time in treating Hong Kong in a special way. That's very useful to our committee.

I don't know how much time I have, Chair.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

You have about five seconds, I'm afraid.

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Those five seconds I will leave to the next witness.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

Thank you very much.

We'll go on to the second round, which will be for five minutes each.

Mr. Williamson, go ahead, please.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have many questions; I'm going to jump right in.

Professor Davis, I'm going to try to summarize your testimony and responses.

You talked of media raids, likening it to fishing, which left a chilling impact, of course, on other activists and reporters; rigged elections; handpicked judges; a chief executive overseeing the security apparatus, at least outside that of the mainland officials; secret star chambers; the rule of law in Hong Kong being replaced by rule by law, or whatever we say, from officials in Beijing; and a secret police that sounds an awful lot like what we saw in East Germany, the Stasi.

Should we begin to think of Hong Kong going forward as a quasi-east Germany, Poland, Hungary, the eastern European bloc nations? It's a territory now firmly under the control of Beijing's rule. What say you to that characteristic, looking back in time, in terms of the threat to the people of Hong Kong?

12:05 p.m.

Professor, Weatherhead East Asia Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center, Columbia University

Michael C. Davis

I would say that that's exactly the case. I hate to say that. As I said, I lived there for 30 years; I'm a Hong Konger. It pains me to see this, and it's all unnecessary. China is trying to control protests in Hong Kong. All it had to do was listen to the Hong Kong people.

This is why I have to stress—and maybe I go beyond the question slightly—that's why democracy has been important in Hong Kong. Hong Kong has been badly in need of a government that can represent Hong Kong people and voice their concerns. I think foreign governments should be pushing that line as well.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Thank you.

August 13th, 2020 / 12:05 p.m.

Barrister and Solicitor, Board Member, Toronto Association for Democracy in China and Clinic Director, Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic

Avvy Yao-Yao Go

Can I jump in, because that's what—

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Ms. Go, I'll come to you in a second. I have a couple of questions here but I want to go in order. I appreciate your eagerness.

Professor Davis, as a legal scholar who knows Hong Kong international law, what would your advice be to this committee and its members? Should we consider holding hearings in Hong Kong? What would your advice be to us as federal lawmakers in our standing in that territory?

12:05 p.m.

Professor, Weatherhead East Asia Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center, Columbia University

Michael C. Davis

My suspicion is that if you tried to do so you would probably find your access, your entry, stopped, if this was publicly known.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

All right.

12:05 p.m.

Professor, Weatherhead East Asia Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center, Columbia University

Michael C. Davis

They've already stopped the head of Human Rights Watch, just because he was going to go to Hong Kong and release a report. He was turned around at the airport and sent back.

There are a lot of other things you could do besides hearings in Hong Kong.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

That's very interesting. We're already seeing a chilling impact; I know Ms. Go has mentioned that.

Currently, there are no visa restrictions required for Canadians entering Hong Kong or for Hong Kong citizens coming to Canada. We might not get arrested, but we simply might not be permitted entry.