Foreign Affairs Committee on May 5th, 2015

[Audrey Eu]

Thank you for the question.

Of course a certain percentage of people in Hong Kong will agree to whatever the Communist party or the central authorities want. In our general election, roughly 55% to, in the good days, maybe 60-odd% would support the pan-democrats or the democratic candidates. But there would always be about 30% to 40% and increasing number who would support the pro-establishment candidates.

Then you see, for this particular election model, it's almost 50%. About 47% to 48% of those people polled say they would accept this election model even though they say they know it's not universal suffrage, or it's not perfect, or it's not ideal.

The reason I say that the pro-establishment forces are doing better and better is that, first, in terms of resources the Communist government has always been helping the pro-establishment candidates, whereas they will always target people who would donate to the democratic parties. For example, there is a newspaper proprietor who is in the habit of donating to democratic parties. His e-mail is hacked, and it's not only just his e-mails in terms of his donations; it's even his e-mails to his wife or his Filipino maid, and how much he's been paying everybody. So there is a lot of pressure on business people not to help democratic candidates or democratic parties.

Also, we have the functional constituencies, which are stacked, basically. You can always plan votes in terms of creating more organizations, unions, corporations. It's always controlled by businesses and so on.

It's very, very difficult to change the current political system and the power structure in the legislature, and obviously for this election. That's why you see Hong Kong people getting more and more disillusioned. That's also why it's so important, as I said earlier in my last answer, for the international community to speak up. It's not only for the Chinese government, it's also for the people of Hong Kong to know that they're not alone in this.

[Chi Fung Wong]

I would like to add one point on why nearly half of the Hong Kong citizens would still support the political reform package under the unequal decision made by the Communist party on August 31 last year. It's because the government would actually give the right to every person to vote in the next election. The problem is that the government would like to educate all of the voters that getting the right to vote is equal to getting the right to choose. But actually, if one person one vote is equal to universal suffrage, if this is the standard, then North Korea is also applying universal suffrage.

We hope that more foreign countries or international concerns can voice the truth on the standard for universal suffrage. Getting a right to vote is not equal to getting the right to choose the candidate, since in the next election only the pro-establishment or pro-Beijing people can enter the election to become the candidates for whom we are allowed to vote. That is not true universal suffrage.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to ask a question concerning article 45 in the basic law. It says, and I quote: “The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress.” I have to admit that “the principle of gradual and orderly progress” sounds like an incredibly vague statement to me. I won't ask you for your definition unless you want to offer it.

Is there anything specific in the basic law or other governing document that says how the Chief Executive nominations are to take place? Is there anything specific about them having to be provided by China, or is it just something that's not stated at all?

[Audrey Eu]

Perhaps I can take this one.

Regarding “gradual and orderly progress,” in fact we are past that. That's been the term used to defer and defer and defer until we finally said we wanted a timetable. We were eventually given a timetable: universal suffrage of election of Chief Executive by 2017, and thereafter universal suffrage of the legislature. That would normally mean 2020.

So we're past that. The actual situation in Hong Kong is very important, because, as I told you earlier, although last year the government pretended to give us a consultation and people in Hong Kong came up with all sorts of models, none of that was taken, not even the most conservative. The model that we're now given is not in accordance with the actual situation in Hong Kong, it's imposed upon us by Beijing.

You asked if there is any other provision in the basic law about the election of the Chief Executive. Actually, there is. Annex I to the basic law lays out the method for the first 10 years, from 1997 to 2007.

Everybody in Hong Kong at the time thought we were going to have universal suffrage of the Chief Executive in 2007, because 10 years down the road we would be ready—“gradual and orderly progress”. Of course, that got pushed another five years and another five years, so 10 years.

The method of election stated in article 45 is that there would be a nominating committee. Then it says that this nominating committee has to be “broadly representative”. Now, that's also a point you have to remember. We don't have a nominating committee. Five years ago there was a decision by the NPC that the nominating committee could be determined or designed in accordance with, or with reference to, the selection committee. But now, with the NPC decision last year, in fact we had a step backwards that basically ordained that the nominating committee had to be exactly in accordance with this selection committee, with the four sectors, and then the 38 subsectors. As I said earlier, the majority of them are Beijing-controlled. The electorate for the nominating committee is only 7%, so it's not broadly representative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

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

We're going to start our second round, which will be five minutes for questions and answers. We're going to start with Mr. Hawn.

You have five minutes, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for your very powerful testimony.

Shame on the Communist government in Beijing for trying to interfere, and shame on their ambassador as well. I know they're monitoring this.

Mr. Burton, I want to talk about the importance of confronting people like the Communist government in Beijing. When it comes to trade, as you mentioned, the soft side seems to have been replaced by a little harsher message from Prime Minister Harper, and trade actually increased. There may be other factors at play in there, but how important is it to call the bluff of people like that and make them understand, through diplomacy perhaps, that it's actually in their best interest not to continue in the way they are?

[Dr. Charles Burton]

In general, our expectation is that the Chinese government should be respecting international agreements that are made, and that would extend to the WTO and all the international agreements that China has ascribed to.

I think there is a tendency of the Government of China to push the envelope beyond the normal range for interpretation of these agreements, and I think that we should be making it clear that we are not going to stand idly by and let that happen. With regard to article 45, raised by Mr. Garneau, it's the same sort of thing. There is no question that when the Government of China and the Government of Britain were representing to the Government of Canada how this thing was going to pan out, it was not going to be a sham election in 2017 but an election where Hong Kong people would be able to freely elect representatives of the aspirations of the people in Hong Kong so that they could maintain the character of Hong Kong and the existing laws and practices, including freedom of speech and freedom of expression, until the 50 years were over. That's the way we understood it, and that's the way it was represented to us by the Chinese.

Do Hong Kong people who are claiming that they support the agreement genuinely want to see their human rights limited? How many people want their Internet access limited? How many members of the Roman Catholic Church would like to see the Roman Catholic Church become an illegal organization, as it is in the People's Republic of China, where they won't recognize the authority of a foreign figure, the Pope, and have to belong to something called the Catholic Patriotic Association?

People yearn to enjoy the benefits of citizenship and to be free, and I think that this is what we want to preserve in Hong Kong, because we can. In terms of China, we don't have an international agreement that compels the Chinese government to treat its people in any particular way beyond the normal expectations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but its sovereignty over Hong Kong is limited by the joint declaration. We endorse that declaration, and if we don't hold them to it, the Chinese government will continue accordingly in its relations with Canada, which is that we don't expect them to maintain the promises they make to us.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I hadn't heard of that patriotic association before. That's a good one.

The bottom line: keep calling their bluff. That's what I'm getting here.

Ms. Eu, you talk about foreign opinion mattering to the Communist government. Is any of that message getting down to the people in China? The reason I ask is that I spent a little bit of time in Taiwan a couple of years ago, and there were an awful lot of people from mainland China who were there shopping and so on, and I am sure the same thing happens in Hong Kong. They take back the message, I think—well, I know they do, because they told me they did—of the relative freedoms in Taiwan and Hong Kong.

How important is that in getting the message to the people in mainland China who do not travel? Eventually, change will come from within. It always does. It might take a very long time, but it comes from within. Is the message at all resonating, getting to the people back in mainland China?

[Audrey Eu]

I am sure Hong Kong's situation is known to some people in mainland China, and there are a lot of mainlanders who in fact travel and study abroad. It's not just shopping. Also, they sometimes go through the firewall in order to have Internet access to what is happening. During the Umbrella Movement, I saw some mainlanders actually coming just to look at the situation for themselves. I asked them if they were worried, and they said they just wanted to take part in this. They actually recognized me, even though they were from the far north.

I am sure that if Hong Kong has universal suffrage and human rights respected, that also sends an important message to China, and I'm sure that is also one of the reasons why China is holding back on its promise to give us universal suffrage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have for this round.

We are now going to move over to Mr. Dewar for five minutes, please.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to remind people, and it was mentioned in testimony, that our Parliament did pass a motion by unanimous consent, so it had all-party support in Parliament. Basically, it was to just put on the record that as a Parliament we urged, at the time, restraint during the demonstrations, which were peaceful, as we've heard from our witnesses. We also urged respect for the agreement we've been talking about, which is the agreement under the one country, two systems, principle, and a responsible dialogue on electoral reform. Our Parliament did state that, and I think it's important to reiterate that.

Ms. Eu, you were a member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council from 2000 to 2012, I believe. I'm just curious, from your point of view, what kinds of changes you saw in the relationship to China, but in particular the political life within Hong Kong during your period of service from 2000 to 2012. How did the political and social changes in China during that time impact the debate in Hong Kong? Could you tell us a little bit about that, about what your experience was, and in your experience as a legislator, what your relationship with China was? What was happening in China during that time, and what effect did that have on the people of Hong Kong?

[Audrey Eu]

I was in the legislature from the year 2000. In 2003, as Joshua mentioned earlier, we had the article 23 legislation. I was a legislator then. I was very worried that Hong Kong was going to pass the national security law.

I didn't think that Hong Kong people would care at that time, but to my utter surprise, half a million people came out. It was a really hot day, and it was a really impressive and very, very moving demonstration. It was so overwhelming that even though we were in the minority in the LegCo in opposing article 23, in the end, because there were so many people out there, it flipped the legislature so that some of the majority came over to us. As a result, the government did not have enough votes to pass article 23. As one member said earlier, change has to come from within.

Since then, since 2003, you see Beijing's hand getting deeper and deeper into Hong Kong, to the extent of now controlling our elections. The legislature has changed a lot since then. In the old days at least there was a measure of politeness and courtesy. Now it's actually quite difficult, and the relationship between the legislature and the government is also very poor.

When I was originally in the legislature, at least the Beijing government would be very courteous, thinking that maybe they could win us over, but when it's so obvious that they're not going to give us our rights, obviously I have to stand firm. Therefore, in fact today the former Chief Executive, Mr. Tung, says that anybody who's anti-Communist party will not become a candidate, will not be able to take part in an election. Somebody then asked Mr. Tung, well, what about Audrey Eu? He said that she knows herself what she has done. It's typical communist rhetoric, “You know what you have done”, that sort of attitude.

Of course, since then there's been a great change in the relationship any Beijing officer had, as far as I'm concerned.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm intrigued to hear you say that. What you have described is that there was a moment when you believed there was no option, and then people did go to the streets. Certainly the message was sent to the legislature and there was an opportunity to change things.

I'm just curious. This is the last question, because I don't have much time. On the vote count coming up, as you mentioned, about one-third of the legislature would be supportive of the agenda of continuing reform, at least to adhere to the agreement that was negotiated. How confident are you that you can at least hold it to below two-thirds of a vote to change direction? In other words, are the numbers there in the legislature right now to adhere to and oppose the undermining of the agreement?

[Audrey Eu]

There is nothing at the moment to suggest that the situation will change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have.

We're going to go back over to Mr. Schellenberger for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony here today. It's been very enlightening to me. I watched intently during the protests that went on earlier in the year, and it seemed that they were on the news every day. The media looked after things pretty well. That was the only way I could get to know what was going on.

Has the media left you? It's kind of gone away. It's not the most important issue, it seems, for the media anymore. Or am I not reading the right stuff? Where's the media?

[Audrey Eu]

We have a lot of journalists who are very, very professional, although they are very, very low-paid. They feel extremely depressed, because there is a lot of self-censorship. That you can tell from the Hong Kong Journalists Association. The members of the profession themselves are saying they are feeling the difficulty of self-censorship and so on. A lot of the newspapers, in fact, have editors who have left their position.

It's not a rosy picture for journalists, although the university turns out fresh graduates and they are very, very dedicated and so on.

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

I know this might be a little off topic, but I look at Hong Kong and I look at Singapore and I also read that Taiwan seems to be continuing on reuniting with mainland China. Might they also suffer the fate that any agreement reached will not be followed?

It's great to come up with agreements, and everyone signs on. I look at Ukraine and Russia and what has happened there. I think probably those people who sat down 17 years ago and signed the agreement on Hong Kong with regard to how it would be handled had good intentions.

Do you see any way we can make sure that those things are followed?

[Audrey Eu]

With regard to the first part about Taiwan, I don't think Taiwan is in a great hurry to unite with China, as you said. In fact, every time you talk to a Taiwanese about one country, two systems, they will laugh at you. They will say, today Hong Kong, tomorrow Taiwan. In other words, they don't want to follow Hong Kong's footsteps precisely because of what's happening in Hong Kong.

As far as honouring agreements is concerned, I'm sure it's part of the nature of a country or a person to try to wriggle out of an agreement after it's signed if it doesn't look to be in that person's or that country's interest. In the long run, how is a country run or how is a person held to an agreement? Everybody must live by the same principles, and you don't want to sign a treaty with a country that would interpret it in whatever way it liked to its advantage. That's the common standard everybody has to keep even though it's very difficult. I'm sure that's the correct position to take.

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

Mr. Wong, what level of support is there within the student community in mainland China with regard to universal suffrage and human rights demands in Hong Kong? Have student organizations—

[Chi Fung Wong]

Do you mean the student organizations' support for the mainland China movement or the mainland China people's support for the student movement?

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

I mean mainland China's student support for you folks in Hong Kong; your students. Or do they know anything about it?

[Chi Fung Wong]

For the new generation, most of them know the technique of how to break through the firewall and to assess the information. Even in the posts related to the Umbrella Movement, they still can find their own way or method to rate or assess the information. The problem is that in the Umbrella Movement, we can't see the mainland China students who directly show their support. It is related to the censorship in mainland China.

I think nearly 100 activists on the mainland tried to support the Umbrella Movement, and finally they were arrested and even put in jail from September to December. This is also the reason why at Scholarism we do not have a lot of motivation directly to connect with the mainland China student because it will increase the risk for them to be arrested again and again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have.

Mr. Law, did you have a quick comment?

[Kwun Chung Law]

In terms of mainland China, the Chinese government is using nationalism as a tool to rule the Chinese people. The Hong Kong people became a target for the Chinese people to point the finger at, and that's the reason why there is propaganda in China. What it was doing was a good job and framing Hong Kong as an opponent to the Chinese people. Nationalism is not only harming the Hong Kong-China relationship, but also the international relationship, because every single one who points the finger at China is accused by China as the opponents or the enemy of the Chinese people. That's related to Canadians and other people around the world.