Honourable members, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee.
I'd also like to convey Professor Cotler's warm regards to all of you. He would have been here testifying today if not for being on dialysis in the hospital. He's tuning in online and following closely, and he expresses his appreciation for your leadership in highlighting this case and in speaking out in Parliament for the release of Mr. Lai.
Indeed, as we meet today, human rights hero Jimmy Lai is languishing in torturous prison conditions in Hong Kong at 77 years of age, suffering from diabetes. He has been in prison for 1,772 days. His crime...? Supporting journalism.
As a British citizen with a twin sister and nieces and nephews in Canada, Mr. Lai could have easily fled. Instead, he stayed to lead the struggle for democracy, for human rights, for the rule of law and for media freedom in Hong Kong, and to be a lightning rod to protect all those who were fighting for the same things and campaigning for freedom. In so doing, he has become perhaps the most prominent and emblematic of political prisoner cases in the world, exemplifying the struggle for our shared values.
As Canada embarks on a strategic dialogue and reset with China, we must ensure that these fundamental norms, these shared values that Jimmy Lai has put not only his livelihood but his very life on the line to defend, find expression in our conversations with China. The foundational principles of Canadian democracy and of this very Parliament should be asserted in these conversations. Parliament should press for Jimmy Lai's release publicly, prominently and persistently until we see him free.
Indeed, Parliament adopted a unanimous consent motion calling for his release in December 2023. In February 2024, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights held a dedicated hearing on the case, and a month thereafter, in March 2024, published a statement calling for Jimmy Lai's release and urging the Canadian government to exercise all deliberate efforts with all deliberate speed to help secure his release.
Next week is the perfect opportunity for Canada to do so.
As chair of the G7, our last major initiative is hosting a G7 foreign ministers meeting in Niagara-on-the-Lake. Mr. Lai helped develop this region and employs over 1,500 Canadians there. It is where his family resides. His sister, nieces and nephews are all in Niagara-on-the-Lake. It would be particularly appropriate for the G7 foreign ministers to use this occasion to speak out on his behalf. Each of these governments has already been on the record individually, and now is an opportunity to do so collectively, which Canada can spearhead as chair. It would be an urgent and life-saving action.
As we await the verdict in Mr. Lai's case, it is a particularly propitious moment to plead for his urgent humanitarian release. It is also crucial for Canada's interests.
A part of the charges against Mr. Lai is for engaging with all of you as Canadian parliamentarians. His case represents the criminalization of engaging with Parliament. That is part of the charges against him.
Canada is also a founding member of the United Nations. In China's response to UN special rapporteur interventions asking if engaging with the UN is a criminal act under the national security law, page 56 of China's response said it depended on the context. Therefore, engaging with Canadian parliamentarians is criminalized under the national security law, and engaging with the United Nations is criminalized under the national security law.
Mr. Lai's case is emblematic not only of the struggle for rule of law, democracy and human rights in Hong Kong, but also of the transnational threats the overly broad, draconian and extraterritorial national security law represents. That is an acute risk for the 300,000 Canadians in Hong Kong and the over half a million Canadians of Hong Kong origin in Canada. After the sense of impunity surrounding the persecution and prosecution of Mr. Lai, bounties were issued against Canadians on Canadian soil, which demonstrates the risks of silence in the face of these human rights violations.
Other Kafkaesque allegations against Mr. Lai have included, as a newspaper owner, discussing the news with his journalists, discussing politics with politicians and discussing human rights with human rights organizations.
It is particularly evident that while Mr. Lai's freedom depends on us, our freedoms depend on what we do for Mr. Lai.
Thank you.