Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 6th, 2025

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

What would you say is the smartest way for Canada to update our business risk advisory on Hong Kong and mainland China, so companies, universities and investors avoid feeding surveillance, censorship or forced labour supply chains?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Please give a very brief response.

[Brandon Silver]

We commend Canada for having done that.

In connection with Mr. Lai's case and the weaponization of the national security law, Canada and a number of countries updated travel advisories, warning, whether it's tourists or business people—and I'm quoting a business advisory—that they should take notice of the arbitrary application of local laws that pose high risk. That gives us leverage. We can use those advisories and show the Hong Kong authorities that if they were to release these prisoners, it would encourage the trade, investment and tourism that has rapidly declined as a result of their persecution and prosecution of peaceful advocates like Mr. Lai.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Next and finally, we have Anita Vandenbeld for five minutes.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I appreciate so much the testimony that we've had today. I think there's a lot that we can follow up on.

I particularly would like to direct my question to Sebastien Lai.

Your persistence and dedication in fighting for your father is truly admirable. I just want to ask you why you think your father was such a threat.

We've heard in previous testimony in the Subcommittee on International Human Rights that it's not about the individual but about trying to destroy the entire media ecosystem. I have to wonder if there's a much bigger motivation behind going after your father. Could you perhaps reflect on that?

[Sébastien Lai]

Sure. Thank you very much.

I think my father, in what he did, had the belief of many Hong Kong people that these freedoms are what make the place special. We have the rule of law, free speech and a free press. All these things are distilled within my father, within his journey. That's what made Hong Kong special, and that's what Hong Kong wanted more of.

He always had this sort of tongue-in-cheek phrase. He said, “Hong Kong is so poor that all they have is money.” I found that quite sweet and quite apt.

I think that in some sense, the Hong Kong government has made a tremendous misstep. They arrested my father thinking that he, as they put it, was this black hand behind the protests, this “foreign agent”. Their idea was, why would someone sacrifice everything he has in order to stand up for freedom and liberty? Why wouldn't he just run away? There must be something.

After five years of having him there, after going through all this stuff, after torturing one of the witnesses to give testimony, they found that to be totally untrue and that he did all this because he knew it was the right thing, as many of you know that this is the right thing. He never advocated extreme views and was always a man of peace.

Now, in their hands, they have this prisoner of conscience, this human rights hero, as many people here and many people around the world agree, and I think they're in a situation where, frankly, they don't really know what to do. That's why it's so important to push them to release my father. Tell them that this is someone we want, and if he dies there, there will be very real consequences.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I certainly hope, and I think everyone on this committee hopes, that this doesn't happen. Just the testimony we've heard today makes it very evident that he was standing up for real values and is continuing to do so.

I want to ask Ms. Gallagher one more question.

We know that it's a targeting of not just individuals but also everybody around them and their supports, including their lawyers. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the threats that are happening to you and to the legal team. What could we maybe also do to help in that?

[Caoilfhionn Gallagher]

These are two tactics that go hand in hand. The first question you asked Sebastien about the media ecosystem ties into this concentric circles approach. As well as targeting Jimmy Lai, who's at the epicentre of their campaign, they target everyone associated with him. That's part and parcel of what they're trying to do.

What I'm increasingly seeing in my work is the targeting of publishers in order to shut down a newspaper. In essence, by going after Jimmy Lai—the biggest fish of all—by shutting down Apple Daily, by having this very high-profile trial where more than 160 articles from Apple Daily, opinion pieces and videos are labelled as criminal, it sends a very clear message. Put frankly, if they can get Jimmy Lai, the biggest fish of all in media terms in Hong Kong, in prison, it sends a message to the small fry. It makes very clear to everyone else that if they dare to speak out, they may be next.

That's the same kind of tactic we're seeing with the ever-widening concentric circles of targeting people in his hinterland. They've targeted family members. I'm very inspired by the bravery of Jimmy Lai, my client, of course, but I'm also very inspired by the bravery of another of my clients, Sebastien Lai, whom you've all heard from today. Sebastien has been targeted and threatened simply for being a son speaking out for his father.

It's very likely that in light of giving testimony today, we'll see abusive pieces in state media in the coming days. That's a pattern we've seen. When Sebastien addresses the United Nations, we see abusive pieces in state media calling him an enemy of the state, followed by threats in formal official statements to prosecute him. We also get caught up in that as the lawyers. We've been—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We will do a lightning round of three minutes each. Before I do that, we need unanimous consent because the bells have been rung.

Do I have unanimous consent from the members to continue beyond 5:30?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

We'll do a lightning round of three minutes each, starting with MP Ziad Aboultaif.

You have three minutes. Let's stick to the time.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses.

Michael, I have a question. Feel free not to answer. What does the daily routine of being a Chinese prisoner look like?

[Michael Kovrig]

Thank you.

It's going to vary somewhat. My experience was in a detention centre in Beijing. I don't guarantee that it's the same for a Hong Kong prisoner.

First of all, the lights are on constantly. They say this is a security measure, but clearly it also wears on you. You have a lack of sense of the time of day or any circadian rhythms. You're woken at about 6:30 a.m. by a bell. You have about half an hour to drink some water. There will be a roll call where you have to sit at attention on your bunk.

The rest of the day is broken up into periods where you have to sit on the edge of your bunk and study, which are called zuo ban’r xuexi. Essentially, you are supposed to sit and reflect on your crimes or study if you happen to have the fortune of access to books, which is often not the case. If one can ensure that prisoners have books and reading material, that is a very important way to alleviate their suffering, frankly.

You will have three meals a day, but as the guards once told me, “We make sure that you are able to eat enough. It's not our responsibility to make sure you eat well from a nutritional perspective.” The food usually is utterly devoid of protein and is mostly overcooked vegetables and rice or bread, and that's all. That, especially over time, for a detainee like Jimmy Lai, can start to have grave health effects in terms of muscle loss, bone mineral density and other health effects like that.

There is virtually no scope to do any real exercise. You're usually locked into an area. There is no gym or other facilities like that, normally. You are often held in very close and utterly confined circumstances. I need to underline that for the situation of someone like Jimmy, it is the isolation and the confinement that take an utterly devastating toll on the psyche, on the nervous system and on the body. It is brutal punishment, frankly. It is inhuman. Under the UN's Istanbul protocol, the solitary confinement in particular is unquestionably torture.

Let us be very clear. As far as I am concerned and serious psychologists are concerned, Jimmy Lai is being consistently tortured in this situation. This is utterly unacceptable. The confinement of these imprisonments, and the grinding routine and monotony, all contribute to grinding you down. That is exactly the purpose of it, unfortunately.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Obviously, the Chinese Communist Party who run China do not.... Their human rights approach compared to ours has a wide gap. They don't seem to admit to a mistake. How can we deal with such a scenario? They're getting more powerful. We could have multiple scenarios ahead of us that will be similar to what happened to you and the other Michael, and now what's happening to Mr. Lai.

What's the best approach to deal with China?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Give a very brief response. We're already over time.

[Jonathan N. Stivers]

It's multilateral. It's the United States, U.K., friends and allies. We're in this world where allies and partners are not working well together. They need to come together. They need to come together and they need to provide, for lack of a better word, a united front. That is where we're most successful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you.

We'll go next to Ms. Anita Vandenbeld for three minutes.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to go back to something you said, Mr. Kovrig, about flooding the channels. So often in these kinds of cases, it's hard to know when it comes to public statements versus private conversations, how much pressure will actually work. In some countries it works better than in others. I wonder if you could elaborate, particularly given your own personal experience, which I cannot even begin to fathom. The fact that you're here today trying to advocate for someone else in that situation says a tremendous amount about your character. I think your insights would be very useful for the committee.

[Michael Kovrig]

Let's be clear that it's not necessarily a one-size-fits-all solution. What may be the best solution in the case of one detainee or human rights situation will not always be the same as another. Here I would very much want to consult with Mr. Lai's counsel and his family to determine what an appropriate strategy would be.

The key, though, is to have a comprehensive and holistic advocacy and pressure strategy that clearly structures incentives, both negative and positive. Seize communication and publicity and media appearances and all of those interactions as part of a comprehensive strategy with clear goals. The publicity, whether it's public shaming or more positive statements, for example, in response to positive moves, needs to be coordinated. It's not communication or media for its own sake. Rather, it's part of a coordinated strategy together with legal measures and quiet diplomacy. They're complementary. It's a question of timing and sequencing and the right tool at the right moment to maximize leverage and pressure. It's done, as Mr. Stivers also said, in a coordinated and multilateral way. It's really a campaign approach to bring to bear that much force, influence and suasion that is the key to ultimate success.

Thank you.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Silver, you said that Irwin Cotler is watching today. I know that you've worked very closely with him over the years. He has always been a firm believer that parliamentarians, and particularly the cross-party voice of parliamentarians, can be a very powerful tool. I wonder if you could comment on that and maybe give some examples.

[Brandon Silver]

Again, the UC motion was a prime example of that, but it shouldn't end there. All the tools that each and all of you have used, individually and collectively, amidst parliamentary procedure should be used to full effect in the case of Mr. Lai, whether that be S.O. 31 speeches on the floor or statements on your social media under the “Free Jimmy Lai” hashtag or in your delegations to parliamentary assemblies of multilateral institutions. I referenced OSCE, Council of Europe, the Francophonie and the Commonwealth. I know that many of you are members of the parliamentary delegations to these groups and can shape resolutions and have speeches on those floors.

Just make use of all those forums, as you so effectively do already.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, you have the floor for three minutes.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I’d like to thank all the witnesses. The meeting has been extraordinary, and the witnesses have given some incredible testimony.

Ms. Gallagher, how would granting Mr. Lai honorary Canadian citizenship be perceived by his legal team?

I do understand that this does not necessarily mean that Mr. Lai would be entitled to consular services. That said, wouldn’t it send a powerful message, especially if it were to be done at a G7 meeting, for example?