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

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

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

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is it five minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Sorry, you have seven minutes, Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Lai, thank you so much for being with us and for what I'm sure is very difficult testimony for you to give.

I want to focus my questions on freedom of the press, because freedom of the press, as we all know, is a fundamental pillar of a strong democracy. I wonder if you could share with us the local media landscape in Hong Kong, how Apple Media fit into that, and maybe how it distinguished itself from competitors. What is the landscape like now that Apple Daily is no longer able to publish?

I don't know who wants to take that on.

[Sébastien Lai]

I could.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Go ahead, Mr. Lai.

[Sébastien Lai]

I just wondered if someone else could add to it.

My dad always had a saying that fear is the cheapest weapon that an autocratic regime has over its people. That is very true for the current media landscape in Hong Kong. All the local media have essentially been cowed, so the Cantonese language media have essentially been co-opted by the government. They did that by making a huge show of the prosecution and persecution of Apple Daily and its journalists.

For example, they sent 500 policemen to raid Apple Daily. Imagine 500 policemen running into the newsroom, stopping people from working, taking laptops and hard drives. That is a very strong sign of the Idi Amin quote, “I can guarantee freedom of speech, but I can't guarantee freedom after speech.”

I also think that's a testament to what Apple Daily was doing before and its bravery in standing up for its belief, even to the point when it got very hard to do so.

That's how Apple Daily distinguished itself when it was first founded. It was a newspaper that spoke truth to power and wasn't afraid to criticize politicians and elites. By doing so, obviously, it was always the thorn in the side of the CCP and the Hong Kong government. With the passing of the national security law, it finally gave them this weapon to crack down on Apple Daily and other pro-democracy activists and protesters.

[Caoilfhionn Gallagher]

Could I add to that, too? Thank you.

I suppose the first thing to say is that the decline in media freedom in Hong Kong has been very rapid and very precipitous. If you look, for example, at the tables from Reporters Without Borders, we see that 10 years ago, Hong Kong was bastion of free speech in the region and very high on the tables. Now, in the most recent 2023 table, it's number 140 worldwide. It's languishing towards the bottom of the table. That reflects what's happened with a very sudden dismantling of what was a very vibrant media landscape.

Jimmy Lai's case and Apple Daily are emblematic of a wider decline. We look at what's happened with Stand News, for example. We also look at what's happened with foreign correspondents being denied visas when they're reporting in ways that the authorities don't like. Also, we look at some media outlets like RTHK, which was once known for its fearless investigations and now has pro-government management.

We've seen that media landscape being completely, utterly changed in a very short space of time.

It also is worth saying that in the last number of months we've repeatedly seen that when there has been criticism coming from UN special rapporteurs or from the Media Freedom Coalition.... There was a very powerful statement from 24 countries in the Media Freedom Coalition over the Christmas period—and we're grateful to Canada for being one of the 24 countries that signed that—expressing concern about the decline in media freedom in Hong Kong. There was a very bombastic response from the authorities claiming that media freedom is alive and well in Hong Kong and flourishing more than ever.

Frankly, that's a black is white statement. It does not bear scrutiny when you look at it. They're repeatedly attempting to claim that it is still a vibrant media landscape, the same way they attempt to claim that they continue to have a rule of law. It simply is not true.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you very much.

Reporters Without Borders is one of the witnesses that I would very much like to hear from when we're looking at this. Thank you so much for that.

Over the course of the 26 years that Apple Daily was publishing, what impact do you think it had on the daily lives of people in Hong Kong?

[Chung Ching Kwong]

As a Hong Konger growing up in Hong Kong, as long as I remember reading a newspaper, I was reading Apple Daily. That is the daily routine that I went through. I would go through my father's briefcase, fish out the paper, which was too big for me at the time, and I would kneel on the floor and start reading it. It gave me a concept of what's public policy and what are the politics in Hong Kong. That's when I first knew about certain issues, like the June 4 massacre or fighting for universal suffrage in Hong Kong.

There has been criticism of the journalistic approach of the tabloid, for sure, but it is a very significant part of all our lives as Hong Kongers. Whether or not you like Apple Daily in general, this is the only printed pro-democracy tabloid you have in the city. When there is huge social movement, Apple Daily is always there to talk about the issue and to try to dive into all of the issues.

Growing up as an activist, the journalists from Apple Daily have always been supportive and friends toward the campaigns that a lot of the activists have led. I'd say it's a very important thing.

A lot of the journalists who were from Apple Daily are right now facing unemployment or having difficulties entering the media industry again in other countries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Your time is over.

Now, I'd like to invite Alexis Brunelle‑Duceppe to take the floor for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses with us today.

Mr. Lai, a special thank you to you, and it's good to see you again, even if it's by videoconference. I won't waste too much time so that we can have as many discussions as possible and so that our analysts can come up with something solid for us after our meetings.

I'd like to know what difficulties you've encountered in your campaign to have your father released, whatever they may be.

[Sébastien Lai]

Do you mind if I speak in English?

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

You can speak in English or French, no problem.

[Sébastien Lai]

Okay, thank you.

The personal risks pertain to going back to Hong Kong, and also issues about what I can say about my father or what I cannot say about my father. At the end of the day, he is being held in prison and has been for the last three years, and it has always been very ambiguous as to what crime he has or hasn't committed.

The Hong Kong government has really shown in the last four years that it's a completely new playing field. I mean, who would have thought the Hong Kong government would put bounties on people? I personally do not have a bounty on me, but to what Caoilfhionn was saying, it is now a government that is fully aware and willing to use its status to crack down on all dissent, and even criticism abroad.

My risk is pretty simple. I cannot go back to Hong Kong because I might get arrested. I repeat what my dad said: It is that idea of using fear to crack down on people in Hong Kong and abroad.

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

In that case, how important is your father's trial to securing democracy and freedom of the press in Hong Kong?

[Sébastien Lai]

The trial is incredibly important because my dad represents a few different pieces of society, and because of how he was persecuted...prosecuted, he represents the free press in this trial. He also represents someone who has supported the pro-democracy movement—someone who's given everything for the pro-democracy movement—but he also represents a businessman and a publisher, and essentially all these functions that he holds are now being put on trial. It's impossible to put him in prison and say that you still have a free press because all he did was publish the truth, which is pro-democracy and critical of the government. In a sense Hong Kong is putting these values—the free press, freedom of speech and its rule of law—on trial with what they're doing to my father.

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

Thank you.

I will now address Jimmy Lai's legal team. How important is it that Canada take action on this? Is there anything Canada can do that would help you legally, or would it only help in terms of the media? If Canada decides to take action, what's the best thing it could do?

[Caoilfhionn Gallagher]

First of all, may I thank you personally for the moral clarity and leadership you showed in relation to the unanimous consent motion in December? We're extremely grateful to you and to all the others who showed such leadership on that issue.

To give a very practical example, the two resolutions of both Houses in the Canadian Parliament before Christmas directly resulted in our then having, for the very first time, the opportunity for Sébastien and for us to meet with the U.K.'s foreign secretary. Sébastien and we had been asking for 18 months for the U.K.'s foreign secretary to meet with us. We asked Liz Truss and James Cleverly, but we had no response. Finally, Lord Cameron met with Sébastien within days of what Canada had done, so it was not only important in itself but it also had a domino effect in securing more support. We've now seen the Canadian Parliament, the European Parliament, the U.S. government, the U.K. government and four UN experts call for the immediate and unconditional release of Jimmy Lai. It couldn't be more important.

The reason for that is we do not have confidence, for all the reasons that Luke gave in his powerful testimony, in Jimmy Lai having a fair trial in Hong Kong. He's been prosecuted under a law that shouldn't exist, in a system that is profoundly unfair and where the national security chief has boasted of there being a 100% conviction rate. That is why it's imperative that we ensure there's a resolution of the case internationally, because we're not going to get an adequate resolution domestically within Hong Kong.

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

Mr. de Pulford, you have quite an impressive network of parliamentarians in 35 countries. I'm going to ask you a question somewhat similar to the one I just asked the legal team. To what extent can parliamentarians in your network see a measure introduced by Canada and draw inspiration from it to do the same in their own parliament? Do you think that's possible?

[Luke de Pulford]

I think the truth is that, for whatever reason, diplomatic services in the Five Eyes and beyond are very reluctant to do anything that holds China to account for anything that it does. It requires a lot of pressure, parliamentary pressure, to make that happen. In every single case where I have seen governmental action on China—and this includes abuses of the Uyghurs in northwest China and many other examples too, including Hong Kong—it has required significant public pressure and parliamentary pressure to get anything done.

What you have done is obviously very influential, but it hasn't been enough to result in accountability, which our governments still have yet to take any steps towards whatsoever.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe.

Mr. Johns, you now have the floor for seven minutes.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

First, like everybody on the committee, I want to thank Mr. Lai. I send my regards to you, to your family and to your father. Thank you for your courage during this really difficult time and your leadership as well. I thank everybody on the panel for the incredibly important work you do for human rights, justice, freedom and democracy.

I'm just going to follow my colleague Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe's questions.

We have the adopted motions in the House and in the Senate that have called for the release of Mr. Lai. We saw the American and British.... I think Ms. Gallagher cited the role, bravery and courage that they've shown.

Mr. de Pulford, you talked about the Five Eyes and the resistance and hesitancy, but some of them have stepped forward and taken a bolder position. What is the reluctance in Canada? What are you hearing from your conversations, and what are you seeing? Maybe, Mr. de Pulford, you can lead on that, because we have seen others in the Five Eyes step forward and take a bolder position.

[Luke de Pulford]

I'm talking slightly out of turn here as somebody from the United Kingdom. I don't want to seem as if I'm being too unfair on Global Affairs Canada, particularly when Global Affairs Canada have been very assertive and forward leaning in so many of their policy positions.

What I would say is that I think the U.K. has been very slow to act on the case of Jimmy Lai. It's only very recently that they have declared him a British citizen, which he has always been. It took a lot of pressure to even extract those words, and the meeting with the foreign secretary was very recent.

Also, the U.K. and China were the two duty bearers under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, so the U.K. had way more skin in the game, but that doesn't excuse other governments for not being more assertive. I would just hope that Canada would follow suit, which I think it will if there is sufficient pressure—at least that's my hope.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Ms. Leung, maybe you could add to that, given that you understand the dynamics here. You've watched what the Americans have done in taking a bit more of a courageous lead. Can you speak to what Canada should be doing and could be doing, and maybe why it's so important for the Government of Canada to call for Mr. Lai's release?