Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 5th, 2016

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

If everyone would please take a seat, we'll get into the last hour.

For those of you who are new members, I think you saw the report. We did a study on Hong Kong before the election in 2015, so we see this as a bit of a follow-up. To the members who got back to Angela to say that it was okay that we get a follow-up, thank you very much for that.

We have Chang Ping here, who is a journalist. He will talk a bit about his work and what he's doing. Gloria Fung, who actually testified before our committee sometime in 2015, is here as a translator. Mr. Ping will talk, and then Ms. Fung will translate.

Even though we're in public to talk about what we're doing, we want this to be sort of informal. Then we'll just go back and forth for maybe a couple of questions to follow up from that. I don't know if people had a chance to look at it, but there was a report that the clerk sent out on some of the work that we did in the previous government.

I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Ping now to give us his opening testimony. I believe Ms. Fung is going to translate for us, and then we'll try to get a couple of questions in here in the next half an hour to 40 minutes.

[Chang Ping, Journalist, As an Individual]

Good afternoon. Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to meet with us. We would also like to thank you for your continuous support for the human rights situation in China and for showing concern for the human rights situation in China and Hong Kong.

I feel very honoured to be the recipient of CJFE's 2016 international media award. I would also like to take this opportunity to share with you my observations and analysis of the recent developments in China and Hong Kong.

My family and I have been under suppression from the Chinese government for a very long time. However, I must say that our case is not really the worst, because there are worse cases in China. In China, a lot of people have been arrested and put in jail, not because of what they do but because of what they say when they are only exercising their freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is just the beginning of any other action, but in China it's almost impossible for you to take any action. We consider speech to be a freedom itself.

Because the Chinese authorities realize the importance of freedom of expression, the suppression of freedom of expression is not confined only to China domestically, but they also crack down on the movement in Hong Kong. They've also tried to manipulate the election in Taiwan. They have also extended this influence overseas, through a campaign amplifying their propaganda work abroad.

I think Chinese authorities, the Chinese government, is actually very good at understanding the importance of freedom of expression. Therefore, they know that they cannot just suppress freedom of expression domestically, within China, but they also need to capitalize on the globalization of freedom of expression elsewhere so as to exert their influence elsewhere as well, including in Canada.

I would like to take this opportunity to urge all our friends here to pay attention to four areas.

I would like to, one, urge all of you to be concerned about every single incident of the suppression of freedom of expression by Chinese authorities. The silencing of the voice of any media, the threat imposed to any journalist, the censorship of any social media, is a global incident with global impact. Twitter's recruitment of Kathy Chen, who has co-operated with the Chinese security department as their China regional manager, and Facebook's development of software to satisfy China's need for censorship of social media all imply China's capability to get access to and censor global users, including Canadian users' expression and personal data.

In addition, WeChat, the popular social medium under China's full control, which is also commonly used by many Chinese Canadians, never shies away from admitting that it has incorporated the Chinese government's strict censorship of expression in its operation.

Number two, I urge all of you to become concerned about the situation of political detainees in China, especially the 709 lawyers case. Since July 9, 2015, over 300 human rights lawyers and legal assistants, as well as their family members, have either been arrested or harassed by Chinese police. Three of the lawyers have been sentenced, 10 of them are still under arrest, and the rest have been forced to agree to remain silent or forced to admit their crimes on TV while they are waiting for the court hearing.

Many of them have been made to disappear or have been abducted by the police without any due legal process. The most recent case is Jian Tianyong, the renowned human rights lawyer. He has been disappeared for over 15 days now, after he visited his client in jail. Prior to this, he was beaten up by police and made to disappear a number of times.

Number three is to support the Hong Kong people's movement to protect their freedom rights. The lack of a response from the international community has induced the Chinese government to further suppress freedom in Hong Kong. The five publishers and staff of Causeway Bay Books have been illegally abducted back to China by Chinese police from Hong Kong just because they published books criticizing Chinese leaders. The courageous sharing of truth by one of the abducted publishers, Mr. Lam Wing-Kee, has not been positively echoed by the international community, where there has not been much progress of any kind. The recent brusque interpretation of Hong Kong Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China has caused tremendous damage in the independent judicial system and also the rule of law in Hong Kong.

Number four, I would like to call for all of you to take concrete actions to ask for the immediate release of Canadian political detainees in China, including Mr. Huseyin Celil and Mr. Wang Bingzhang, given their deteriorating health conditions in jail. Wang was abducted back to China from Vietnam. He was charged in China and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was severely tortured in jail. His mental and physical health are in jeopardy. His family members have been advocating for the Canadian government's concern, but in vain. Actually, just last night I talked to his family members over the phone. His family members also urged me to pass the message to all of you to take immediate action to get his immediate release.

Last but not least, I would like to make a few recommendations.

First, China superficially appears to be very strong, but actually it is very concerned about international opinion and it does respond to international pressure.

Second, human rights are key to the resolution of many of the problems in China. A lot of countries have been talking about the separation of economic and trade agendas from the human rights agenda. I personally consider these two to be integral parts of the entire package. They are inseparable.

Therefore, if we advocate strongly on the human rights agenda, we will also be able to get a better deal and also be able to enjoy bargaining power when we deal with China in any commercial or government-to-government agreements.

There is also one last point I would like to make. It is also of utmost importance for Canada to establish a comprehensive human rights strategy and protocol, and have it factored into all policies and agreements involving China.

I would like to end my deposition here, and I welcome questions from all of you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ping, and to Ms. Fung for helping to translate.

We have less than half an hour left. Is it all right if we go back to each side so everybody gets a chance?

We'll start with you, Tom, and then we'll move over here, and we'll finish with Madame Laverdière.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Is that one question at a time, and then go back and forth?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No. Just go ahead. We'll have one round is what I'm trying to say.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I have three questions. They are pretty short.

Thank you very much for coming in. I note our agenda says “Human Rights Situation in China”. It should be “Human Rights Situation in China and Hong Kong”. That should be specifically laid out in the meeting agenda.

I know your presentation today doesn't tie in directly with the study we have, but I do have a question that relates to the study and to the situation in Hong Kong.

Senator Tom Cotton and Senator Marco Rubio have tabled legislation in the United States Congress calling for asset freezes and travel bans against individuals involved in the decisions to abduct, kidnap, prosecute, and oppress certain members of the Hong Kong assembly and also the booksellers involved. One of them was kidnapped directly from Hong Kong, one from Thailand, and three from PRC.

Thus, that's my first question. Would it be effective to sanction the officials involved in these actions, yes or no?

My second question is regarding the two legislators who were barred by the judicial court and disqualified. I'm talking about Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus “Baggio” Leung. What will be the effect on the democracy movement and the rule of law movement in Hong Kong? Will they accept their disqualification from taking their seats in the assembly, or will there be further protests and demonstrations? Will other legislators as well dissent and then not take their seats?

My last question has to do with the report of the committee from the previous Parliament, which had three recommendations. Although it reiterated its support for the “one country, two systems” principle as well, it had the following recommendation:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada state its support for the democratic aspirations of Hong Kong people, including the need for genuine universal suffrage in the election of their political leaders.

I would like to get your comments on that and your viewpoint on what that means to you in the activism you do.

[Chang Ping]

First of all, I would like to point out the reality that a lot of the Chinese officials who are involved in human rights violations have not been sanctioned or punished by the international community. Not only that, they have also been able to send their kids abroad for further education, or even to stay behind to operate a business abroad. When they fly out of China, they are given VIP treatment. It seems as though they have not been really sanctioned or punished by the international community.

I consider sanctions to be an effective means—of course, one of many means—to discourage these officials from doing what they have been doing. The reason that they are sending their family members and kids abroad is that they themselves feel the insecurity inside China; therefore, they have to find a safe haven abroad. If they are sanctioned, I'm quite sure it will have an impact on them.

I consider the interpretation or amendment of the Hong Kong basic law by the standing committee of the national congress of China to be damaging, not only to the Hong Kong rule of law but also the global rule of law. This interference by the national congress is without any due legal process, and as a result, it will disrupt and eventually also violate entirely the Hong Kong basic law.

As a result of that, I believe the pan-democratic people, as well as all the young people, who have a very strong attachment to Hong Kong, will be forced to take even more radical action in order to get their voices heard.

Before, they used to take a very rational approach and used a very peaceful means in expressing themselves. If this is going to be the trend, if the international promise is going to be broken and disrupted by the Chinese government, then the Hong Kong people, especially the young people, will have no other means to voice their opinion but to be even more radical in the future.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

I don't think we have a chance for a third one, but we do have a limited amount of time, so we're going to move to the Liberals and Mr. Levitt.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Good afternoon.

First of all, I want to congratulate you on your International Press Freedom Award given by the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression. I've looked over your biography, and clearly you've had a long history of standing up for press freedom and being on the front line in standing up for human rights.

On the topic of press freedom, can you explore a little bit with us, and describe the situation that exists within China, and maybe even beyond China's borders, in terms of media, and particularly social media, in terms of pushing the narrative, and the impact that has on human rights?

[Chang Ping]

Thank you very much for your congratulations and for the encouragement of the work I have been doing for two decades.

Definitely, social media in China have been playing a very important role, because all the traditional print media or even electronic media are all under very strict party control. As a result, social media comparatively have more room to convey messages without that kind of strict control.

Chinese social media such as WeChat and Weibo have been enjoying an audience of billions and billions of people within China as well as abroad. Actually, many Canadians are also users of these two social media. This kind of new media has enabled the Chinese people to more freely express their own ideas and also exchange views.

As a government, the Chinese Communist Party realizes how important social media are within China and abroad, so instead of stopping social media altogether, it actually makes use of them to manipulate public opinion. They pay lots of people, called five-cent people, to create so-called public opinion on social media so as to mislead the general public, as well as media, as to what the real opinion is all about. That actually also happens here in Canada.

Actually, the same manipulation of public opinion also extended to the recent American presidential election. I understand that a lot of Chinese people supported Trump. They used WeChat to spread this message to the community to advocate for people to vote for Trump.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Congratulations on your well-deserved prize.

You mentioned the issue first of Huseyin Celil. I have to say that my office is aware of the issue. We are monitoring. Amnesty International, I think, is also working on that issue.

You mentioned more broadly the issue of political prisoners and the issue of torture. It's unclear if it's a decision, but a few weeks ago the Canadian Government floated the idea—some said the decision was made, at other times the decision had not been made—of having an extradition treaty with China. Many people were very worried about that. Of course, Canada wouldn't extradite somebody only on the basis of political activities, but still, I'm among the people who are worried because of the judicial system in China, which is not transparent, and because of the potential for torture in prison.

I would like you to comment on torture in prisons and the transparency of the judicial system in China.

[Chang Ping]

I always consider any kind of trade agreement to be mutually beneficial, on the condition that it is fair and that the human rights agenda is being embedded in the process of negotiations between the two parties. We have to realize that in China there's only one party that rules, and they can do whatever they like.

I mentioned that human rights is also an improvement. It's also a key to the resolution of many other problems. If the human rights situation could be improved in China, it would also have a positive impact on Canada-China co-operation. Both parties could benefit equally from this improvement.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Why don't we finish off with Mr. Fragiskatos, please?

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I have a question about what the people of Hong Kong think of the proposed electoral framework.

The previous sitting committee heard testimony from Alan Ka-lun Lung, the chairman of the Hong Kong Democratic Foundation, who cited a poll that 47% of Hong Kong people support the package of proposals put forward, as far as the electoral framework is concerned, while 38% were against and 16% had no opinion.

Another witness testified that “something less than half of the people polled” are willing “to pocket the package”, while close to 40% say, “Over my dead body”.

Another professor commented, “Essentially we have a city now divided into two halves, as we saw at the end of the Occupy movement”, with the Occupy movement being the Occupy movement in the U.S., of course.

I want Mr. Ping to comment on the views that exist in Hong Kong about the electoral framework. Is the city divided on the question on the electoral framework that's been passed?

[Chang Ping]

In response to your question, I personally believe that if there is no pressure exerted from above, everybody will support an election with the element of genuine universal suffrage. Why is it that there are some people who are opposed to it? There could be various reasons.

Number one, some of them could be brainwashed by the government, thinking that if there is democracy, that might also imply instability. That is very common inside China.

Number two, it could be the result of the manipulation of public opinion by the government. As I said before, there are so many ways that the Chinese government has manipulated public opinion; therefore, sometimes under such long-term socialization and manipulation by the Chinese government, people sometimes might even have internalized this type of very misleading belief.

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

Even on the question of how to choose the chairman, how to choose the head of the local governing structure in Hong Kong, there seems to be a divide. Young people are very much opposed to what had originally been put forward by the Chinese state in terms of the selection framework. Particularly the business class, but even older populations—let's say 45 years of age and above—were not as opposed to what the government was putting forward. There is a clear divide on issues beyond the question of universal suffrage. That's at least what this committee in a previous forum was told, so I just wonder about that.

[Chang Ping]

I consider the political dynamics in Hong Kong to be very.... What shall I say? It's changing all the time. It all depends on the influence from the Chinese government and also on the various forces at work there. We have to admit that Hong Kong society is very pluralistic, exactly because there are so many different opinions existing in Hong Kong society. That's why we do need a democratic system, right? It's in order to build consensus so that all the different opinions can be minimized and those divisions could also be minimized.

With respect to the business sector's view of a democratic system, we have to understand that it's just like the view of a lot of business people here. If they want to do business with China, they know what to do, even though they may support democratic systems. Also, in order to get the business, sometimes under this kind of undue influence and pressure, they may openly say that they don't need it.... It's just like North Korea. If you go to North Korea and ask the north Korean people whether or not the government is good, I'm quite sure that over 90% of them will tell you that the government is excellent.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you for being here today.

Thank you to the committee for being flexible and giving our witnesses a chance to be here.

With that, the meeting is adjourned. We'll see you on Wednesday.