Foreign Affairs Committee on March 10th, 2015

[Martin C.M. Lee]

Certainly, the pan-democrats could block it. There's no doubt they could block it. We have enough votes, and at the moment I don't see anyone going to the other side.

Now, as to Mr. Xi, of course nobody can be certain, because he has been “hitting these tigers,” as they say in Chinese, these corrupt tigers; and these are real tigers. So even he is finding it not an easy job at all, but he is hitting at corruption harder than any of his other predecessors.

Also, the next thing he has done, which gives me some hope, is that he has just introduced a new state policy, which is to rule the country by law. Of course, it's not good enough for you and me, because we would have liked rule of law, not rule by law. But at least it's a start.

I hope he is a man of vision and he could actually lead us back to Deng Xiaoping's way. Because Mr. Chairman and members, I believe when Deng Xiaoping came up with this idea of “one country, two systems” he did not mean it only for Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Macau, but he also intended that policy to apply to the rest of China. That is why he said Hong Kong must keep what we have under British rule for 50 years, without change, but at the same time having democracy to bolster, to protect these core values. He wanted Hong Kong to remain high, and he obviously reckoned that China would take about 50 years to catch up with us, and that is why he said 50 years.

In fact, this was confirmed when the secret documents were released in Britain after 30 years. There was a document recording a meeting between Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Deng Xiaoping in Beijing on December 19, 1984, on exactly the same day when the joint declaration was actually signed in Beijing. That document recorded Deng Xiaoping's words, and he explained to Mrs. Margaret Thatcher that some Japanese friends had asked why 50 years. He said it was because they wanted China to be at par with the rest of the developed countries, and he reckoned it would take 50 years.

He wanted China to go up, and of course if you look at China today, there is no socialism or communism being practised there. It is capitalism, but in Mr. Deng Xiaoping's words, “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. That means capitalism, so he obviously was looking at Hong Kong as a Chinese city with the rule of law, human rights, a level playing field, and corruption well under control, and he obviously wanted China to go down that route. That is why he set down in this policy, “one country, two systems”. He meant it also for China to catch up with us.

That is why I am confident that if Mr. Xi, the present leader, has power himself, has gotten rid of the corrupt tigers, hopefully, he will go down the road of reform, and what better signal for him to give to the rest of the world that he means business and that he is a reformer, than when he actually allows the Hong Kong people to have democracy as it was already promised to us.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I couldn't agree more, and one of the things about things changing, people advancing, and so on, is that change probably has to come from within, eventually, in mainland China.

We spent some time in Taiwan last year, and one of the topics of discussion was what it would take to change China into a freer market and freer society, and so on. One of the comments was that the more Chinese people from the PRC spend time in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and other places, the more they're going to demand the things they see the people of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and other parts of the world having.

You said 50 years. Maybe it's 50 or maybe it's 100. What's your assessment of the ultimate power of the people of China to change China from within, and of somebody like Mr. Xi seeing that coming and basically getting out in front of that parade?

[Martin C.M. Lee]

It's quite right. When people are educated overseas, they see the world. Many Chinese students are studying here, and they go back. The important thing is that any good leader of China—and I hope Mr. Xi is one of them; we will see. China is now the world's second-largest economy, but how do you sustain it without a corresponding political structure? After killing all the corrupt tigers, what do you do next? How do you keep the country free from corruption? You have to have a system. In fact Deng Xiaoping said many years ago:

With a good system, even evil men cannot do evil. But without a good system, even good men cannot do good, but may be forced to do evil.

That good system, I suggest, must be a democratic system.

A good leader will say, now that China has economic power, what's next? If he wants to sustain it, he must make sure that China will go down the democratic way, like all the other countries in the world. Hong Kong is the best place to begin with democracy in China, because they have already promised it to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Garneau, you have seven minutes, please.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much for being here today to offer your testimony and to answer our questions.

One question I have is this. In talking about the joint declaration as well as the basic law, there is the question of elections, and of course, the very big issue of the preselection of candidates. Is there anything in any of the writing of either the joint declaration or whatever documentation exists and the basic law that spells out specifically whether or not the selection is based on a preselection ordained by China, or was that detail left unsaid?

[Martin C.M. Lee]

First, the joint declaration itself only talked about raw principles, because it was an international agreement. But the joint declaration itself says quite specifically that China's basic policy on Hong Kong, which was already set out in the joint declaration, will be further set out in the basic law for Hong Kong in which more details would in fact be given.

In articles 45 and 68 of the basic law it is said that for both the election of the chief executive, in article 45, and the election of the entire legislature, in article 68, the ultimate goal is to have universal suffrage. But article 39 prescribes that the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are to continue to apply to Hong Kong. That covenant, of course, sets out effectively that they will be elected democratically, and the basic law itself, as I said, in article 26 says that all Hong Kong permanent residents would have the right to elect and the right to stand for election.

Indeed, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has already ruled that the election has to be genuine and fair, so there must not be too much unnecessary restriction to the right to stand for election. But at the moment, what Beijing has said is that the candidates must love their country. That is a good thing, but how do you spell it out in a law? Who decides whether any one of the ladies or gentlemen here loves their country or loves it enough to be, in China, nominated to be chief executive. They will decide, “This guy is not a patriot.” That restriction is totally wrong.

When you look at the basic law and at the joint declaration and at the international covenant together, it has to be a meaningful election. Hong Kong people must be given a real choice. The nomination procedure is prescribed in the basic law, in article 45, to say that there will be a nomination committee that is broadly representative. Of course, the best and the broadest way to be representative is to have all the members of the nomination committee elected by “one person, one vote”, which is an indirect type of election, as in the election of a U.S. President. I don't mind that, but it cannot be right that Beijing could effectively control the constitution of such a nomination committee.

In its decision on August 31 last year, the Standing Committee of the NPC decided that the nomination committee would consist of 1,200 people, following the present election committee of the chief executive, and these 1,200 members would be elected in the same way as under the now-existing system for the election committee. That is, they would be elected not by “one person, one vote”, but by functional constituency types of elections.

This is very old. I was told that Mussolini had it, and Indonesia had it about 20 years ago, but Hong Kong is probably the only country that still has it. It's “one lawyer, one vote” and “one engineer, one vote” for some of those. When it comes to the commercial side, it's “one company, one vote”, so a rich man will have many votes because he has many companies.

This is totally unfair, and that is why I said in my opening remarks that if we go down this route, the nomination committee will be controlled by Beijing. At the moment, if you look at the present election committee of the chief executive, Beijing controls at least 950 out of 1,200. Beijing decided last year that anybody who wants to be a candidate in the election of the chief executive in 2017 must have the support of at least 50% of the 1,200 members of the nomination committee. They control 950, so how could we put up somebody with 600 votes?

So that is why; they want to control it.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Very quickly, I have two questions.

Of course, we've seen the umbrella movement. It has been covered quite a bit in the news. From appearances, there are a lot of young people who, as you've said, may have been born after 1997 or close to there. How does the Hong Kong population in general feel about this issue?

Second, apart from this issue, how would you describe relations between China and Hong Kong?

[Martin C.M. Lee]

This issue has turned out to be very divisive. I would say that it is because our chief executive, no doubt at the direction of Beijing, wants to divide the community. For many years, even after the handover, the Hong Kong community was a very harmonious one. I remember that people belonged to different parties, yes, like here, but they were very polite even if they didn't agree with you politically.

But this particular movement has resulted in the community being totally polarized, because whenever the pro-democracy people hold a demonstration, Beijing will make sure that there is a counter-demonstration. It's documented in many press reports that these people are paid to protest against our protestors, and then there's a scuffle. It's very divisive.

Public opinion polls show that although a lot of people were inconvenienced, including me.... When you go to work, it's a major inconvenience, because they were Occupy Central. That's where my chambers are, and Causeway Bay, and Mongkok. These are busy districts, right? A lot of people were inconvenienced, but surprisingly, very few people were really angered about these things.

As for the relationship between China and Hong Kong, in one word, it could be immediately improved if Mr. Xi Jinping were not only to give Hong Kong people the vote, but to give the Hong Kong people the right to stand for elections. It would be completely harmonized again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much. That's all the time we have.

We'll start one more round for five minutes. We have three speakers.

Mr. Goldring, we're going to start with you, please, for five minutes.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Lee and Ms. Fung. I suppose that if we were to abide by the letter that was received from the Chinese ambassador, perhaps we wouldn't be meeting here today, but fortunately this is Canada.

I have a question along the line of these thoughts. Ms. Fung, I'd like to know what Britain is saying about this. Have they expressed any direct concerns? Are they involved in trying to bring about adherence to the original agreement? What have they been doing? Have they been communicating any concerns for this too?

[Martin C.M. Lee]

May I take this one?

[Gloria Fung]

Yes.

[Martin C.M. Lee]

Thank you.

Until recently, the British government has been very disappointing. It is a signatory and it has every legal right to say to the Chinese government, “Hey, look here”, and to ask what's happening, but it has chosen not to. I have to say that their foreign policy on Hong Kong is simply, “Give us more China trade, please.” I choose words carefully, but I'm afraid that is how they have behaved in the past.

Recently, though, Parliament did the right thing. The House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs has just come out with a long report on Hong Kong. In fact, it was referred to earlier. I would urge honourable members to take a look at it. It has actually criticized the British government in various places.

I hope the British government will do the honourable thing on Hong Kong and not just think of its China trade, because, to begin with, as I said in my opening statement, the two things are not inconsistent. They are not mutually exclusive. If Britain were to honour her obligations and duties under the joint declaration and defend the aspirations of the Hong Kong people for democracy, which was already promised to us in the basic law, there's no doubt in my mind that Beijing would respect them, instead of treating them as if they're already in their pocket.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

How is the legislation that's being proposed in the United States being received there? Is there any indication of the level of support that it might receive? What are the specifics of it? What are they calling for?

[Martin C.M. Lee]

In fact, the legislation has yet to be produced, and this is why it is shocking. No doubt some of you might have read the Hong Kong government's position. The Chinese government's current position, at least up to now, is also “pocket it first”, which is a Chinese expression. It is not good enough, but you had better take it first rather than not have anything. Half a loaf of bread is better than nothing. But how on earth can we pocket it first when we can't even see what it is?

Yet they are so ridiculous. They say, “Okay, now Beijing has already made this decision. In our bill, presented to you in the near future, we cannot go outside that decision. We haven't decided to say it yet, but please tell me that you're going to pocket it first.” Once you say, pocket it first, the obvious logical question is, “what comes next?” and they won't tell us that either. So why would I pocket it first when I don't even know what is to come later?

This is absolutely absurd.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

With the agreement that was signed, were there not any specifics on a timeframe? There may have been specifics on what would happen, but were there any specifics on when they would happen?

[Martin C.M. Lee]

There was no timeframe in the joint declaration except that “one country, two systems" would last for only 50 years.

At first, I thought it would take place immediately, because the joint declaration was signed in 1984 to take effect in 1997. I thought we could already set in place a democratically elected legislature during that time, or at least have everything ready. However, the basic law says that during the first 10 years after the handover, we may not yet have universal suffrage, but that after 10 years we may. I thought that meant we would only wait for 10 out of the 50 years, but already, it has been postponed until 2017. Even if it comes about, it's already 20 years later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have. Thank you.

We're going to move over to Mr. Dewar, for five minutes, please.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've established very clearly what Canada's role could be based on what we've seen from other governments, the U.K., and clearly the historical relationship we have, both with China and Hong Kong. Of worthy note, here's a reminder for the record that Canadians in Hong Kong number over 300,000.

I want to ask Ms. Fung a question about what's happening with people here in Canada. How can people help support what is happening? As well, what are other instances around the world of people offering support?

What we are hearing today is very important, and I really want to underline the point of view that this is about having good relations with China, and being responsible actors at the same time. I'd just like to hear from you about some of the things that are happening within the Canadian context, the community, and how people are responding, as well as some other examples of how people are responding globally and supporting what I think is a very straightforward request, which is the commitment to adhere to the 1997 agreement.

[Gloria Fung]

Thank you for your question.

Actually, within Canada over the last one and a half years, ever since the start of the so-called Occupy Central movement, I see that even within Canada, a lot of Canadians, particularly those people who are originally from Hong Kong, are very concerned about what is happening in Hong Kong.

If you go back to before 1997, there was a wave of immigration from Hong Kong to Canada and other parts of the world. After 1997, because people saw that maybe there was not really that much change, they thought that maybe they could go back, but now and over the last year, we are seeing another wave of immigration.

According to one of the figures that I have just obtained from Hong Kong, 21,709 people applied in 2014 for a certificate of “no criminal record”. Of course, this does not imply that all of them will emigrate elsewhere, but at least political uncertainty is being hatched in Hong Kong. A lot of people within Hong Kong are very frustrated with the bad governance of the present Hong Kong SAR government, which is mostly hand-picked by Beijing without any accountability to the citizens in Hong Kong.

Within Canada over the last one and a half years, a lot of young people, as well as first generation immigrants from Hong Kong, have joined forces with us to stage a lot of rallies and public forums, as well as petitions and letters, in order to show their support towards Hong Kong.

We are also joined by Canadians who are not from Hong Kong. For instance, we have joining us the Canadian Federation of Students from the universities, the Canadian Labour Congress, and Unifor. We also have professors and students from academic circles joining us. Very recently, we had three seminars in three universities: one at the University of Waterloo, one at U of T, and then another forum with non-Chinese Canadians. You can see that a lot of interest and a lot of concern have been built up among Canadians.

Globally, there is a network called “Global Solidarity with Hong Kong” that was set up last year. It consists of members from over 60 countries. Every day, people are on Facebook and on Twitter with messages of what could be done all over the world in order to synchronize what kind of support and action we can stage for Hong Kong. Now we have members—I think there are more than 60,000 people—from different countries who even now continue organizing in their own countries.

In Toronto, we have probably one of the most advanced organizations, because we are the only city in the world that joined the PopVote that was organized last June. I see this kind of aspiration among Canadians here, and we hope that the standing committee will also take this into consideration to see what we can do in order to allow our citizens to better understand what is going on in Hong Kong.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to wrap up with Mr. Schellenberger.

You have five minutes, sir.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much for your testimony today.

It seems to me that signed agreements do not seem to be respected. Not only do we see this in Hong Kong, but we see it in Ukraine, where deals are made or documents are signed to be implemented somewhere down the road or not implemented somewhere down the road. Do governments sign agreements only for photo ops and then hope that 10 or 20 years from now they'll be gone and somebody else can deal with the situation? Or are these things signed with the due respect that they really should receive? What's your feeling on that?

[Martin C.M. Lee]

When the joint declaration was being negotiated between the British and the Chinese governments back in the 1980s, if I can go back to Deng Xiaoping's words, he said to Margaret Thatcher that to have an agreement under which we would take back Hong Kong was not going to be difficult. We could simply tell the British to get out. But he said it wouldn't be right unless it was supported by the people of Hong Kong. He made it a condition precedent to the agreement.

He actually got it, but at the time some Hong Kong people were very reluctant. Others saw in it a possibility for a successful future for Hong Kong even though many people, I suppose in their hearts, would have preferred some other means of settlement.

I for one went along with that, but starting from day one of the joint declaration, I made it my business to hold China to every promise contained in it, because to my mind if you let one promise go, the whole thing may collapse, and actually everything is tied together. That is why for all these years I have done my best or at least tried my best to hold China to all these promises.

It could still work if Xi Jinping were to go back to Deng Xiaoping's ways, the actual blueprint. But one of the important premises is that the Chinese leaders must trust the Hong Kong people. How can you have one country and two systems when there is no mutual trust? Now the trouble is that every time there is an election in Hong Kong, although the democrats in the Legislative Council have more votes than the opposition parties do, they are simply ignored in the Legislative Council because their superiority in voter support outside the Legislative Council is not translated into an equal number of seats or at least a proportionate one, since our method of elections is very unfair due to the dysfunctional constituency type of elections that still account for half of the legislature.

The government keeps on ignoring the democrats within the council, and that is the problem, which has to be redressed.

I hope, Mr. Chairman and honourable members, that your support of Hong Kong will be non-partisan. That is the case in the U.S. Congress, and that has been the case in the U.K. Parliament. You are stronger when you are united.

[Gloria Fung]

I would like to add one point to your question here. Actually late last year when Britain tried to send a delegation to review the implementation of the joint declaration in Hong Kong, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China publicly announced that the joint declaration was no longer in effect as of July 1, 1997.

What that implies is that China does not honour and respect what they have promised before. If the international community including Canada remains silent about this, then how can we trust that whatever agreements and contracts we sign with China in the future will be honoured?

I think we need to pay attention to this kind of pattern, because it will also have an impact on Canada in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.