Obviously, if I had the solution to those questions quickly available, we would already be doing it.
To go beyond my initial remarks, I'll say that I think we, in this geopolitical age of monsters, need to think pragmatically, but I don't mean pragmatism in terms of some kind of short-term excuse to focus on, for example, economic gains. I mean pragmatism rather in terms of leverage and strategy. What does the other side...? I don't mean to “other” them, so I'll rather simply refer to them as our counterparts. What do they want? What are their interests? Where are the points of leverage? Where are their pain points, frankly, but also what are the potential rewards?
Like political figures or officials in any other system, they respond to incentives. How do we change their cost-benefit analysis on Jimmy Lai? I think suasion and persuasion are one, a strategic narrative to articulate the fact that it's actually more costly for them to hold him. For Jimmy Lai to become ill in prison, for example, is of absolutely no benefit to them. If anything, the risk of a problem from their self-interested perspective is going to grow the longer he is there, so why not find a face-saving way to end this? Think from their perspective. Do they really want a martyr who then becomes some kind of a symbol that is problematic for them?
These are cold calculations, but ultimately, one has to look at it from their utterly ruthless, realist perspective and think about how we can create leverage in negotiations. What does Canada have, together most especially with our allies and those liked-minded in the G7, in the CPTPP or in the European Union? How can we collectively come up with a common position that says, “If you persist with this, we will impose these costs”?
Let me give you one example. The European Union had members of the European Parliament sanctioned by China. Only when China wanted something and the European Union denied it to China did China take the step of removing the sanctions from those members of the European Parliament. I think that's one example. To some extent, it's a question of creating that leverage.
To go back to the earlier question, for example, about Hong Kong offices or transnational repression in Canada, we need to look at all the tools we have going across the DIMEFIL to limit and constrain those offices from doing anything harmful in Canadian society, assuring all Canadian citizens, regardless of their national origin or ethnicity, that they are safe in Canada and that our law enforcement services, our investigative services and our intelligence services will work together to protect them and assure them that there will be no transnational repression in Canada. Then, from there, we can look to extend that.