Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Feb. 6th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

I call the meeting to order.

Before I begin, I'd like to say a few words about an incident that occurred at the end of last week's meeting. On behalf of myself and all members of this committee, we apologize to our esteemed colleague Alexis Brunelle‑Duceppe. It will never happen again. We also apologize to all the interpreters. What happened will never happen again.

I'd also like to ask all members of this committee to refrain from engaging in crosstalk.

Crosstalk is not acceptable and is not according to the rules of this committee. It will be not accepted. Please respect—starting with me and all colleagues—the rules of the committee.

Welcome to meeting number 44 of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today we begin our study on Jimmy Lai's detention in Hong Kong.

We'll have a second meeting next week. At the end of today's meeting, we'll take a few minutes to discuss it.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I'd like to share a few rules for witnesses and members.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the videoconference using the Zoom application, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice of floor, English or French at the bottom of your screen. For those in the room, you can use your earpiece and select the desired channel.

In accordance with our routine motion concerning sound checks, I wish to inform the subcommittee that all witnesses have completed the required tests in advance of the meeting.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses who have joined us today.

We have, as an individual, Sébastien Lai, who is joining us by videoconference. From Doughty Street Chambers, from Mr. Lai's legal team, we have Caoilfhionn Gallagher, barrister, and Jonathan Price, barrister.

From the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, we have Luke de Pulford, co-founder and executive director, and Chung Ching Kwong, senior analyst, appearing as an individual.

Finally, from Hong Kong Watch, we have Katherine Leung, policy advisor.

Thank you all for being with us today. You will have up to five minutes for opening remarks, after which we will proceed to questions from the members of the subcommittee. I will let you know when you have one minute left on the clock.

Welcome, Mr. Lai. You have the floor for five minutes. Please begin.

[Sébastien Lai, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dear members of Parliament, I am very grateful to be able to testify in front of all of you about my father's ongoing show trial. Before I start, I want to thank all of you for the unanimous consent motion that was passed, asking for my father to be freed.

Hong Kong is a litmus test of how China views the values of the free world. For years Hong Kong has been a city with a dual status. Its institutions were once grounded in the rule of law while under Beijing's autocratic regime. The hope was that China would eventually adopt Hong Kong's systems and would grant civil liberties to its people. Instead, many Chinese and Hong Kong elites now hold foreign passports in order to be protected by these freedoms in free countries while they crack down on them at home.

In contrast, my father has chosen to stay in Hong Kong and not turn his back on the principles he has championed for over 30 years—those that underpin freedom and democracy. At the age of 76, the price for doing the right thing is that he now faces a sham trial that could see him imprisoned for the rest of his life.

My father is currently on trial on trumped-up charges under a national security law designed to silence all dissenting voices. Since the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, my father has been one of the most vocal critics of the Chinese communist regime. He founded Apple Daily, a newspaper that spoke truth to power, and became a beacon for the city's pro-democracy movement. For this, Hong Kong authorities are now attempting to paint my father, a newspaper publisher, as a dangerous traitor, with charges of colluding with foreign forces and sedition.

The trial is set for 80 days. It is being held with no jury but with a panel of three judges hand-picked by the city's chief executive. The UN special rapporteur on torture last week called for an investigation into reports that evidence of one of the prosecution witnesses was obtained by torture. In spite of all this, the Hong Kong authorities continue to insist that the city still upholds the rule of law and that its judiciary remains independent. My father's trial is proof that neither holds true.

Hong Kong is brazenly cracking down on its citizens' fundamental freedoms while lying to the world that it remains a rule of law-compliant jurisdiction. They do so on the assumption that democratic countries like Canada will turn a blind eye because of the size of China's economy. The authorities also draw confidence to do so from judges from democratic countries, including Canada, who continue to sit on the city's Court of Final Appeal.

My father's show trial is a blatant perversion of Hong Kong's justice system to persecute one of the most ardent defenders of democracy. Canada has the power to hold the city accountable for ripping away these freedoms from its people. The pursuit of democracy is not a crime. As a son, I hope that you can help save my father.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Monsieur Lai.

Ms. Gallagher, you now have the floor for five minutes.

[Caoilfhionn Gallagher, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I lead the international legal team for Jimmy Lai and for his son, Sébastien Lai, whom you've just heard from. I work along with my colleague, Jonathan Price, who's here today with me.

It's often said that journalists don't want to ever become the story, but Jimmy Lai has become the story, and it's one that the world needs to hear. It's the story that you've just heard from his son, Sébastien, the story of a hugely successful and self-made businessman who, in 1989, so affected was he by the Tiananmen Square bloodshed, decided to risk it all to speak truth to power and to stand up to human rights abuses and CCP corruption in Beijing.

In my opening remarks, I want to highlight three themes about Jimmy Lai's detention.

The first theme I will term "lawfare" because Jimmy Lai was targeted for decades for doing his work. However, it's only in the last four years that he's been imprisoned and that Apple Daily, his newspaper, has been shut down, the printing presses silenced. That's because what he has faced since 2020 is prosecutorial harassment, a barrage of spurious cases designed to silence him, weaponizing the law. Make no mistake; this is lawfare.

Now that's something that Jonathan and I, in our work, increasingly see authoritarian states doing. Instead of states just using traditional legal tools—like defamation laws, cyber-libel laws or terrorism laws—to silence their critics, we're now also seeing a wide range of other laws being used to try to silence people, such as regulatory tax fraud laws. Mr. Lai's case is a paradigm example of this authoritarian tactic. He's been convicted in four separate sets of criminal proceedings resulting from peaceful participation in protests and a Tiananmen Square vigil and in a wholly bogus fraud case about violation of a lease.

However, of course, the main and best-known legal weapon he faces is the controversial national security law imposed by Beijing in June 2020. What we're now seeing is the authorities wielding the twin weapons of the NSL and a colonial-era sedition law to try to silence critics. Using those legal weapons, they've ransacked libraries for undesirable books, imprisoned students for liking social media posts, and even convicted authors of children's books about a flock of sheep resisting the tyrannical rule of a wolf pack. This is a dramatic decline of freedoms in a city that has a long and proud history of having enjoyed liberties unavailable in mainland China.

Now Jimmy Lai's NSL and sedition trial lays this bare. Every day in the trial we see new, ludicrous allegations. I'll just give one example in opening: Last week, the prosecution made great play of the fact that Apple Daily, a newspaper, had news coverage almost every day of the umbrella movement. A newspaper reports news; that's the allegation.

In truth, it seems to us that Jimmy Lai is accused of three things: conspiracy to commit journalism, conspiracy to raise human rights concerns with human rights organizations like Hong Kong Watch; and conspiracy to raise political concerns with politicians, including members of IPAC. Frankly, these are not crimes. They are actions protected under international law, echoing the protections here in Canada in section 2 of the charter. They're also actions that should remain protected under the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

The second theme I want to highlight is transnational repression. That's the deeply concerning pattern of the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities no longer being content with doing what they can to silence critics within their own borders, but trying to use the long arm of the state to silence their critics wherever in the world they may be. That's, of course, done through a range of threats and actions, including secret overseas police stations and bounties being put on the heads of individuals worldwide. John Lee described them as “street rats” who should be hunted down. I'm acutely conscious that, in 2021, the PRC imposed sanctions upon Canadian politicians, including this subcommittee, for daring to speak out about human rights abuses.

We're now seeing extraterritorial threats to prosecute those who support Jimmy Lai, including Sébastien Lai, a son speaking out for his father, and we on the international legal team for daring to raise concerns about human rights abuses before United Nations bodies. We've also seen a range of individuals outrageously named as alleged co-conspirators in the trial, including Luke de Pulford, who sits beside me, and Bill Browder. The message to all of us is clear: We should leave Jimmy Lai to his fate. However, we will not be bullied, and we know that this subcommittee will not be bullied either.

The third theme I want to turn to quickly is why Hong Kong is different from other authoritarian regimes. We hear about those issues I've raised so far in other countries, like Iran, Myanmar, Belarus and Russia. The difference with Hong Kong is that it continues to maintain a fig leaf of rule of law, a facade of due process and business as usual.

We've all seen the videos of Hong Kongers weeping in the rain as they kept vigil outside Apple Daily's offices on the last night of its printing, shining smartphone lights as makeshift candles in a poignant image which was then captured on the final cover. We all saw Hong Kongers queueing around the block to buy that final copy of Apple Daily, realizing that the last newspaper that spoke truth to CCP power was dying, and with it, a part of Hong Kong.

Now, what we see in Hong Kong is a bay of broken promises. It's the only financial capital to hold hundreds of political prisoners. As Congressman Mike Gallagher in the U.S. put it so powerfully, the bankers wear golden blindfolds as they look out to Victoria Harbour.

Frankly, it's not only the bankers. All those who believe Hong Kong still complies with the rule of law must look more closely and look at what is happening to Jimmy Lai.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Excuse me, Ms. Gallagher. You've gone over your time, but I'm going to ask the committee if they agree to give you more time.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Please continue.

[Caoilfhionn Gallagher]

I apologize. I didn't see the one-minute notice.

As the UN special rapporteur on torture made clear last week...she raised grave concerns regarding Jimmy Lai's trial because there are credible and publicly known allegations that one of the prosecution's key witnesses, Andy Li, was tortured in mainland China, and that his testimony against Jimmy Lai was coerced.

All those who continue to prop up this bully regime must urgently reconsider.

Jimmy Lai risked it all in 1989 to move into the media world to speak truth to power. He remained in Hong Kong after the handover. He remained after 2019. He stood up for truth and for his fellow Hong Kongers, and now we must stand up for him.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Ms. Gallagher.

Now I invite Luke de Pulford from the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China to take the floor for five minutes.

[Luke de Pulford, Co-Founder and Executive Director, Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a privilege to appear before your committee as a witness and to be able to commit to Hansard the truth about what is happening to Jimmy Lai.

Mr. Chair, just a few short years ago, the legal system in Hong Kong was internationally respected. Now, I believe it is accurate to describe that same legal system as a tool of the executive and an occasional weapon of political persecution. In my view, no case better exemplifies Hong Kong's descent than that of Jimmy Lai.

Three features of Mr. Lai's trial stand out as emblematic of Hong Kong's authoritarian decline.

The first feature is that a government, aided and abetted by the prosecution and law enforcement, is engaging in malicious mischaracterization of Jimmy Lai, constructing a narrative about him which they know to be false.

The second feature is that to procure this narrative, coerced testimony will be relied upon.

The third feature is that attempts are being made to incriminate foreign nationals and blame them for inciting the 2019 unrest in Hong Kong.

On the first point of malicious mischaracterization, the bald truth of Jimmy's case is that he is simply a character in a fabricated narrative. There are no crimes here, as you have heard so powerfully described by Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC. In essence, Beijing needs a mastermind to blame for the 2019 pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong and Jimmy Lai is the best fit. That's it. Tragically for the Lai family, Jimmy is the person selected to bear the yoke of “mastermind” behind this movement and everything that goes with it.

This is false, of course. Beijing knows it to be false. The prosecutors in the case know it to be false. It is self-evidently false on the basis of readily available evidence. It's so obviously false, in fact, that coerced testimony has to be deployed to make it seem true. The actual truth is that there is precious little evidence to connect Jimmy Lai to the predominately youth-led democracy movement in Hong Kong. However, in jurisdictions where the legal system has shown itself willing to yield to executive power, evidence can always be found.

This is where the tragic story of Andy Li enters this farce.

Andy Li, known to some on the committee, was arrested under the national security law in 2020 for, inter alia, working with foreign politicians in Hong Kong. Shortly after, he tried to flee to Taiwan with 11 others. The 12 were apprehended in Chinese waters and taken to Shenzhen prison in China, where things got very bad for them, especially Andy.

The Washington Post reported the following last month after a year-long investigation:

Most of the 12 were not physically abused, but seven people familiar with conditions at the center said screaming could “consistently” be heard coming from one cell: Li's.

Since his time in Shenzhen, Andy has appeared as a key witness in Jimmy Lai's trial, to the surprise of nobody. However, even Andy's testimony is not enough. If Jimmy colluded with foreign forces, there have to be some forces with which he has colluded. This is why I, together with Global Magnitsky Justice founder Bill Browder and my Japanese colleague Shiori Kanno, are named as co-conspirators with Jimmy Lai on this third charge: “colluding with foreign force[s] to undermine national security”. They want to try to claim that foreign forces—us—were somehow commissioned by Jimmy to undermine national security in Hong Kong.

Mr. Chair, it gives me some satisfaction to be able to say to your committee and beyond that these allegations of collusion would not be a crime in any normal jurisdiction, nor would it be something to be ashamed of. However, it is false. Jimmy Lai had nothing whatsoever to do with IPAC's founding or operations. I know, because I have dotted every I and crossed every T. If I'd had the opportunity to give evidence in these kangaroo proceedings in which I am named but to which I have never been called, this is what I would have said. It's all invention or amplification of half-truth to suit Beijing's somewhat bizarre obsession with a mastermind narrative.

I am going to finish with this: It's tempting in such situations to forgive those who go along with authoritarian overreach as “useful idiots”. However, that implies something passive. I believe it's far too generous a way to describe those involved here. The prosecution in Jimmy's case, led by Anthony Chau and Ivan Cheung, have not been passive. They are actively and enthusiastically colluding with the government to persecute Jimmy Lai. Chau and Cheung's conduct heaps shame upon the Hong Kong legal profession, trashing the legacy of many finer lawyers who went before them and grinding the rule of law—hard-earned by more courageous and principled men and women—underfoot.

Mr. Chair, I think I'm over time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

I now invite Chung Ching Kwong, senior analyst with the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, to take the floor for five minutes.

[Chung Ching Kwong, Senior Analyst, Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Allow me to express gratitude to the committee for your commitment to upholding human rights around the world.

I would like to draw your attention to the rights and dignity of prisoners that are gravely at risk. The detention of Jimmy Lai is just the tip of the iceberg.

As I speak, there are over 1,000 political prisoners like Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong. The number of persons on remand, who are unconvicted, increased to a daily average of 2,600 in 2022—a 10-year high.

Reports and testimonies reveal that political prisoners are particularly vulnerable, enduring harsh conditions and psychological pressure. I have sought to document the mistreatment of those in detention in Hong Kong, have interviewed former inmates and have compiled credible information.

Many testimonies are hard to verify. The information I am about to present includes only the testimonies reported in credible Hong Kong media sources, or that I collected myself from those who claimed to have experienced mistreatment. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to present the sources on a confidential basis.

One victim who refused to be named was beaten by a staff member to the extent that one of his testicles burst. While he was fulfilling a punishment of doing push-ups, a correctional staff hit his groin repeatedly, inflicting permanent damage.

Just last month, it was widely publicized that a correctional officer was involved in stabbing an 18-year-old male inmate in the anus with a wooden stick, resulting in perforation of the rectum. The victim will have to use a stoma for the rest of his life. The case was revealed by activists, and criminal proceedings have been initiated against the accused officer.

Other widely reported mistreatment include beating, applying mint paste to the genitals, being forced to crawl like a dog and to eat without cutlery, and inmates are forced to eat feces and to drink urine, and so on. Dehumanizing language focused on their political beliefs is also commonplace. Common words are “rioter scum” and “cockroaches”.

I raise these cases to underline that mistreatment is common in Hong Kong detention facilities. When you take into account that for most of the accused their only crime is campaigning for democracy, the abuse seems all the more egregious.

Routes for appeal and complaint do exist, but rarely lead to accountability.

While in prison, you can make a complaint to a justice of the peace during inspection and you can make a complaint to the warden, or directly to the ombudsman's office, but none of these channels will lead to an independent investigation because the complaints committee is an internal organization where all members are appointed by the Commissioner of Correctional Services.

Last year, the number of complaints received by a justice of the peace was 42, which was a record low. Most of the complaints were referred to the Correctional Services Department for investigation, but none of them were further handled, or they were discontinued.

Even if a prisoner dares to make a complaint, he or she risks retaliation, that is, being put into solitary confinement. There were 2,905 to 3,181 cases involving prisoners sentenced to segregation as punishment each year from 2015 to 2019.

Prolonged solitary confinement can be considered as torture. The UN's Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners state that it should be prohibited to hold a person in solitary confinement for more than 15 days, but there are reports that political prisoners have been locked up for more than a month with different reasons for their punishment. These range from having an extra piece of bread, an extra packet of chocolates or a pen in their possession.

Again, these claims are widely reported in credible media in Hong Kong—however, predominantly in Chinese.

For example, Chow Hang-tung, activist and human rights lawyer, had been held in solitary confinement seven times for nine consecutive months. The reasons include that she went on a hunger strike on the anniversary of the June 4 massacre, defended herself in court, was awarded a human rights prize and received too many letters.

A friend, Nicole Chung, was put into solitary confinement as retaliation because she lodged a judicial review to challenge the sexist arrangement where female inmates have to wear trousers all day, despite the weather, while male inmates have options.

Another close friend, Gwyneth Ho, also suffered from solitary confinement repeatedly for saying things in court that the correctional staff found objectionable.

I have detailed what's happening to these people as accurately as I can, based upon credible sources, but I would like to make a direct appeal to you today.

To me, these are not simply brave people fighting for democracy thousands of miles away. These are my very close friends who are suffering because the international community failed to keep its promise to Hong Kong.

I am aware of the leadership Canada has shown on the world stage, when it comes to addressing human rights abuses, or offering a home to those in need. As a friend of those in jail, as a Hong Konger, I ask you to show that leadership once again, where so many others have found themselves reluctant.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Ms. Kwong.

Katherine Leung, policy advisor, I invite you to take the floor for five minutes.

[Katherine Leung, Policy Advisor, Hong Kong Watch]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

My name is Katherine Leung, and I am the policy adviser for Hong Kong Watch Canada.

I appear before this committee today with a central message, asking Canada to call for the unconditional and immediate release of 76-year-old Jimmy Lai, the founder of Apple Daily, which was previously the most prominent pro-democracy newspaper in Hong Kong.

I will use my time to focus on how Canada should be involved, what we have and haven’t done, and the next steps that Canada should take to reaffirm our commitment to human rights abroad and advocate for Jimmy's case.

The charges against Jimmy Lai are not a reflection of any criminal conduct on his behalf, but of how Hong Kong, under the direction of the government in Beijing, is cracking down on fundamental rights and freedoms.

Let me reiterate that the allegations against Jimmy Lai are unfounded, politically driven, and indicative of a broader pattern of silencing dissent and curtailing freedom of the press in the region.

Last week, the UN special rapporteur on torture warned that evidence from a key prosecution witness in Lai’s trial, Andy Li, was obtained through torture. Other prosecution witnesses include former Apple Daily employees, including Cheung Kim-hung, who accused Lai of “portraying a negative image of the Chinese Communist Party, with the hope of securing financial and political support from American readers.”

In January, the number of prosecution witnesses in Lai’s case dropped from 60 to 14 without explanation. This is highly unusual, and raises further concerns surrounding the fairness and politicization of Lai’s trial.

The Canadian Parliament has shown strong support for Jimmy Lai. At the start of Lai’s trial in December 2023, the House and the Senate both unanimously adopted motions for the Hong Kong authorities to release Jimmy Lai and cease prosecuting him and others charged under the national security law. While we strongly welcome these initiatives by Parliament, it is important to note that the Government of Canada has yet to publicly call for his release.

With that said, I urge the Government of Canada and its ministers to reflect the will of Parliament and call for the unconditional and immediate release of Jimmy Lai. This would align with Canada’s historic commitment to being a champion of human rights and a defender of democratic principles. The case of Jimmy Lai should be no different. It would also be in line with Canada’s Indo-Pacific strategy, which advocates pushing back against behaviours that undermine international norms, such as arbitrary detention.

Jimmy Lai is a British citizen imprisoned in Hong Kong for exercising rights enshrined in Hong Kong’s Basic Law, the region’s mini constitution based on principles laid out in the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Our allies have taken steps that Canada hasn’t. Both the American and the British governments have urged the Hong Kong authorities to release Jimmy Lai. Canada should exert diplomatic pressure on the Chinese government in lockstep with our allies, and clearly demonstrate our steadfast commitment to human rights and the rule of law in the region.

It is also important to note that Canada has not placed any sanctions on Hong Kong officials. The U.S. has sanctioned 25 officials, both from the Hong Kong government and the National People’s Congress of China, for “undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy and restricting the freedom of expression or assembly of the citizens of Hong Kong.”

I urge the Government of Canada to seriously consider using sanctions, particularly on Hong Kong chief executive John Lee, as a tool to hold the government of Hong Kong accountable for its human rights violations, including those against Jimmy Lai. We have a Magnitsky sanctions regime. It is important that we use it.

To conclude, I urge the Canadian government to swiftly join its Parliament to call for the immediate and unconditional release of Jimmy Lai, as well as all political prisoners in Hong Kong. The Canadian government should also implement sanctions on John Lee and other Hong Kong officials who are complicit in dismantling the independence of the judiciary and rule of law in Hong Kong.

Now is the time to act, before the end of Lai’s trial and a jail sentence that could mean his dying in prison.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Ms. Leung.

I thank everyone for being here and for their comments.

We'll now go to questions from members of the subcommittee. For the first round, I invite Mr. Genuis to take the floor for seven minutes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I want to thank all of the witnesses for their powerful testimony.

I particularly want to thank you, Mr. Sébastien Lai, for sharing your powerful story and experience and for turning your personal grief into a moment of activism for justice and freedom. Your father is such a personal hero of mine. I had the honour of meeting him in Hong Kong in 2017. He left such a strong impression on me, not just for what he was fighting for, but also for his character, for the kind of person he was and is.

If you're comfortable, I want you to share with us a little bit about his present condition, his disposition and how he is responding to the situation.

[Sébastien Lai]

Thank you very much for your very kind words.

I haven't been able to get back to Hong Kong for the last three years because, in speaking out on my father's behalf, there is unfortunately a risk that I could also be imprisoned.

To my understanding, at his age of 76 and having been in solitary confinement for the last three years, it does take a toll on a person psychologically and physically, but he's keeping strong and he knows that in the end he is doing the right thing.

There's a story that I like to tell. When he was first arrested, they kept him for a day or two and then released him. Someone said to him, “Look, Jimmy, was it all worth it knowing that you might be arrested again and spend the rest of your life in jail? Was it all worth it?” He said, “I was lying there on the cold prison floor and I had a lot of time to myself, so I looked back over the last 30 years and I thought to myself, would change I anything?” He smiled and said, “I wouldn't change a thing.”

He's keeping strong.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I know that your father is a man of deep faith as well. I'm sure that is a source of great strength for him as well.

[Sébastien Lai]

Tremendously.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Pulford, full disclosure: as you know, I'm one of the co-chairs of IPAC. I feel I should say that before I ask this question.

I wonder if you could share a little bit more about what IPAC is and why IPAC has been targeted by Hong Kong authorities as part of this malicious prosecution.

[Luke de Pulford]

Thank you very much indeed.

Yes. The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China is a cross-party international group of legislators spanning 35 countries now and really representing the breadth of political ideology and geographical location. It works on China, and it tries, as you know, Mr. Genuis, to determine something of a consensus on China from the perspective of democratic legislators.

This is something that Beijing does not like. Anybody working with IPAC members around the world will be seen as colluding with foreign forces for the purposes of the national security law, as the activity of IPAC has certainly gotten up the noses of Beijing since day one.

It hasn't really been until now that we've seen that turn into legal consequences for some of those involved within IPAC; but yes, now we are, with both Shiori Kanno and I, working for IPAC, having been named as co-conspirators in Jimmy's trial. As well, there is Bill Browder, who I think has been named only because he briefed some Japanese politicians in IPAC. I think that's the only reason he's found his way into this trial at all. It seems to me that we're now a bit of a target, regrettably.

Thank you.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I think it is a tribute to your work and other IPAC legislators that you have attracted such ire. As Winston Churchill, your former prime minister, said: “You have enemies? Good. That means you stood...for something.”

I want to ask about the presence of a former Canadian Supreme Court Justice, Beverley McLachlin, on Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal.

Mr. Sébastien Lai already has spoken critically about her continuing presence. She responded in a Globe and Mail story by saying, “The court is doing a terrific job of helping maintain rights for people, insofar as the law permits it, in Hong Kong.”

I wonder if any members of the panel want to react to that sentiment from a former Canadian judge.

[Chung Ching Kwong]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

I'd say any foreign judges who are serving on the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong should have left by now. The reason is that their presence on the Court of Final Appeal is giving the so-called rule of law a false legitimization that there is a rule of law. They're simply maintaining the façade that there might be rule of law in the system, be it in the criminal side of things or the commercial side of things.

Any comments saying that foreign judges remaining on the court would at least give some safe thoughts to the rule of law in Hong Kong are simply false. Just look at how many foreign judges actually got involved in national security law cases. Look at how Jimmy Lai's assets were being frozen simply because he wasn't convicted yet, but he was charged under the national security law.

It's clear that there's no rule of law in the national security side of things nor the commercial side of things. I say that all foreign judges should have left the court by now.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

In the 30 seconds I have left, does anybody else want to weigh in on the question of Justice McLachlin's continuing presence?

[Jonathan Price, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers]

Can I just say one thing about that?

The problem with a foreign judge sitting in Hong Kong today is that they give a veneer of respectability to a system that has dissolved underneath the edifice of the rule of law. There is nothing there anymore, but it is a dressing, like the foreign judges. They still have, of course, the courtrooms. They still wear the robes.

I'm afraid, with no disrespect to her personally, Beverley McLachlin has become part of that dressing. She's become part of the appearance of the rule of law, but she is not significantly contributing to its substance, as much as she'd like to think that she is. She's probably doing more harm than good, although her individual contribution, I'm sure, is nothing short of excellent in what it is. However, it's this appearance, this veneer, that we think is doing the damage.