Thank you.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today. My connection with Hong Kong over the past 35 years has been principally as a professor of international relations and trans-Pacific affairs. My perch has been Canadian universities, frequent visits and occasionally teaching courses in political science at the University of Hong Kong.
I appear before the committee as an individual, not as a representative of my own university, the University of British Columbia or the university system.
The unfolding situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has major implications for Hong Kong, Canada and Canada-China relations. Previous witnesses, including Mr. Chan, have offered, with urgency and precision, informed recommendations for measures to address gaps in our efforts to assist those immigrants and refugees eager and, in many cases, desperate to leave for Canada.
I won’t add here to the list of recommendations but instead address three additional matters that need to be part of our approach.
First is understand the setting. The national security law; increased surveillance, arrests and prosecutions; introduction of national education in schools and universities; censorship and self-censorship are all changing Hong Kong’s political and social life in substantial ways. The one country, two systems model has shifted significantly toward one country. Hong Kong is being more closely integrated economically, culturally and politically into the mainland. This is unlikely to stop or be reversed. Many of my university friends are already adjusting to this mainlandization as the new normal.
It is very difficult to get a sense of how many Hong Kong residents want to leave, when and for what reasons. Some motives for leaving include fear of arrest and prosecution for involvement in protests, as we have heard; disillusionment about Hong Kong’s future; and livelihood calculations about future economic opportunities. The best guess is that unless civil order breaks down completely, unless there is large-scale violence or the economy collapses, the level of immigration to Canada, the U.K. and elsewhere will not be unmanageable. Prospects of a mass exodus are small.
The second matter I want to address is the expanded role of our universities. As the previous witness indicated, many people will be coming to Canada. Ottawa’s new program puts a premium on educational connections for attracting and assisting Hong Kong immigrants.
Our institutions, however, don’t yet seem to be registering a sharp uptick of applications in universities and educational institutions. We need to be gearing up in several areas on our campuses, enhancing student recruitment efforts and scholarship support, preparing incoming students from Hong Kong as well as mainland China for adhering to principles of respectful academic atmosphere. We need to be maintaining joint programs with Hong Kong academic partners, but with greater awareness that they may be under restrictions similar to those in our exchanges with mainland Chinese institutions.
One area highlighted in earlier testimony that needs to be underscored is the need for increased vigilance and response in situations of harassment, intimidation and improper surveillance of any student here in Canada.
The third point is the longer game. Hong Kong will remain a point of friction in Canada-China relations for the long term. Issues related to dual nationality, the extraterritorial implications of the national security law and a potential exit ban are going to top the governmental agendas in the short term. Active individuals and communities in Canada will continue to push for democratic reforms and call out violations of the Basic Law and other human rights in a way that—