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

[Katherine Leung]

The Government of Canada, as of today, has not called for the release of Jimmy Lai. Global Affairs has stated that it's monitoring the trials, but that's not enough. We need to take a firm stance and condemn the political persecution, which can hardly be described as a trial. What is happening to Jimmy Lai is blatant political persecution and suppression of fundamental freedoms.

Canada has always stood up for human rights, including in Hong Kong. There are 300,000 Canadians in Hong Kong, and 500,000 Hong Kongers in Canada. Our stake in the game is also people-to-people relations. There's always the risk that Canadians in Hong Kong may face the same kind of persecution—although maybe not to the same extent or the same kind of publicity—if we continue to allow this to happen without speaking up.

The U.K. and the U.S. have both called for Jimmy Lai's release. The U.K.'s statement was from David Cameron. The U.S. statement came from the Department of State. Canada has a resolution in parliament, but our government has not taken a stand. I think that it's important for us to show clarity in where we stand on this issue and take leadership as well.

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

Can you speak a bit about what more the government can do beyond just condemning the situation, and what we could be doing with the international community? Also speak about the fear of those 500,000 Canadians in Hong Kong and what this case is bringing to Canadians in Hong Kong right now.

[Katherine Leung]

I think a step that the Government of Canada must take is to sanction Hong Kong officials. We have a Magnitsky sanctions regime, but we haven't used it at all on China. I don't know why we haven't.

The U.S. has sanctioned 25 officials, and it is important that we do the same. People like the chief executive of Hong Kong, John Lee, are directly complicit in the human rights violations that are happening, including towards Jimmy Lai, and people who are tortured to extract a certain statement from them, etc.

I should note as well that direction towards the Hong Kong government comes from Beijing, and our strategy towards the People's Republic of China will directly affect how the human rights situation in Hong Kong is dealt with.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Gallagher, following Ms. Leung's testimony about sanctions, we talked about John Lee.

Are there others you can highlight here today, Ms. Gallagher, who should be sanctioned, using the Magnitsky law? We have legislation here in Canada to do that.

[Caoilfhionn Gallagher]

May I return to you on the sanctions issue separately afterwards? I'll have to take instructions.

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

Sure.

[Caoilfhionn Gallagher]

Could I add something on the question about what more Canada could do?

We entirely support the comments made by Ms. Leung. I would say there are three key things.

The first is, of course, that the Canadian government can and should call—unequivocally—for Jimmy Lai's immediate release. They should do that publicly and in their bilateral engagement with China and Hong Kong officials.

Second, we'd ask that Canada also raise concerns about this case and what it represents in multilateral fora. In the next number of weeks, we have, at the Human Rights Council, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture giving her annual report. We would expect to see Canada raising very grave concerns about Andy Li and Jimmy Lai when they have an opportunity to speak in the interactive dialogue with respect to torture. Being silent, we think, would be the wrong thing to do there.

Third, we would say this, following on what Ms. Leung said: There are 300,000 Canadians in Hong Kong currently. There are over 200 Canadian companies in Hong Kong currently. Jimmy Lai's case is a cautionary tale. What we've seen is, essentially, the state-sponsored theft of a business. A hugely successful media company was shut down by order of the executive. Every single Canadian company operating in Hong Kong with the current national security and sedition laws in place is risking action like that being taken against them if any of their employees like a tweet the authorities don't like, speak out of turn or stand up to the authorities. That is something of grave concern for all Canadian businesses and people currently in Hong Kong. The Canadian government must speak out for them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

We'll now go to our second round, and I would invite Mr. Ehsassi to take the floor for five minutes.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Lai and all of you here today. I am very grateful for the incredible advocacy that you have done for a number of years now.

Let me also express my great admiration for Mr. Lai. He truly is a paragon of courage and an individual who stands up for his principles. The image of Mr. Lai being arrested is one I will never forget: his determination and resolve to stand up for the principles of free journalism and the rule of law.

The first question I have would either be for Mr. de Pulford or Ms. Gallagher.

You stated that, recently, the United Kingdom acknowledged that Mr. Lai has British citizenship. I suspect part of that was because they didn't want to play into the hands of unfounded charges that Mr. Lai was conspiring with foreign governments. The good news is that this has been acknowledged.

Are they now espousing in any way, shape or form the legal case on behalf of Mr. Lai? What is it you expect from the British government?

[Luke de Pulford]

I'll be very brief.

I had a meeting with the minister in the U.K. the other day on this subject, because I'd been named as a co-conspirator. I asked them to make strong representations. Like many countries, they are very reluctant to take any measures that seem as if they might elicit a very robust response from Beijing. Unfortunately, that has become the constraint.

What we'd like them to do is to issue revised business risk advice to sanction individuals involved. The U.S. doesn't have anything like the skin in the game the U.K. does, yet they've sanctioned 25, as you heard. It makes no sense. The U.K. is lagging behind on those issues, at least.

It's over to you, Caoilfhionn.

[Caoilfhionn Gallagher]

Thank you very much for the question.

All too often what we see with political prisoners is that they have to fight a battle on two fronts. They have to fight a battle with the country that's detaining them, but they also have to wade through treacle to get their own government to speak out for them. Regrettably, we and Sébastien and Jimmy Lai have had a long wait to get the U.K. government to speak out for Jimmy Lai, for their own national. We're very grateful for what Lord Cameron has now done and for the sea change that we're now seeing. As I said, Canada played a key part in that before Christmas. That's very welcome, but it's essential that they now use the leverage that they have.

One very serious concern we have is that at the moment, the U.K. government continues to speak out of two sides of its mouth. When it comes to human rights and foreign policy, they'll raise concern about Jimmy Lai, but when it comes to trade and the economy, they won't. We've seen repeatedly issues about Jimmy Lai and about human rights and civil liberties in Hong Kong being raised by foreign ministers, but then immediately afterwards there is a visit from a trade envoy and from a trade minister attempting to say that it's business as usual. That's a real concern to us.

I should say that it's also a concern in Canada. Whilst we've seen the powerful words that were used by Canada in the Media Freedom Coalition statement over Christmas—they didn't call for Jimmy Lai's release and go that far, but they did criticize what was happening in his case—you see simultaneously the message still going to businesses in Canada that it's business as usual and this is a safe place to do business. That's why Luke's call for there to be a business advisory is very important.

The U.S. government gives a warning to U.S. companies: If you are doing business in Hong Kong, here are serious risks to you, to your employees and to your employees' loved ones. Why does Canada not do the same? Why does the U.K. not do the same? We're also speaking to the EU about why the EU has not yet issued a business advisory like that. They're all continuing as if we're still in 2015. We're in 2024. The landscape is wholly different. Businesses need to be warned about that.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Absolutely. Fair enough.

I understand that you are using all the legal tools at your disposal, Ms. Gallagher and Mr. Price, but I've only heard the UN rapporteur on torture mentioned, because they did release a statement on how one of the individuals, Mr. Andy Li, was forced to confess to this. Are there other UN bodies or special rapporteurs that we should attempt to persuade to take stronger action on this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Ehsassi.

Could we have a quick answer, please?

[Caoilfhionn Gallagher]

Yes. I can give more detail afterwards.

In short, we're waiting for a response from the working group on arbitrary detention, who had already raised concerns directly with China last year. We've had four special rapporteurs call for Jimmy Lai's release. That's quite an unprecedented statement. I can give you the detail of each of the four special rapporteurs. We're grateful for the support we've had so far from the UN. It's very important that Canada reinforces that at the Human Rights Council session in March, when they'll have the opportunity to support us and to support the four special rapporteurs who have spoken out for his release.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Ms. Gallagher.

I now invite Mr. Majumdar to take the floor for five minutes.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sébastien, it's good to see you. Thanks for coming to be part of this virtually. I know that your presentation and the presentation of your team was very impressive to the opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre, during the December meeting. Thank you for being such a force of nature.

This question is for both you and your legal team. Why have they targeted Jimmy Lai? Why is the Chinese Communist Party so afraid of him?

[Sébastien Lai]

Dad showed an alternative in a few things. He showed an alternative to the news with Apple Daily, news that didn't have to cower to the government and didn't have to suck up to the elites. He also showed an alternative that you didn't have to bend your knee to China to be successful and to do well in business in Hong Kong. They didn't really like that. They didn't like someone who they were unable to control and unable to bend. That's what Dad was for the last 30 years.

As well, the people of Hong Kong have themselves shown that they truly love these values of freedom. I mean, two million people showed up for a pro-democracy protest. That was 20% to 30% of the Hong Kong population. Can we imagine that anywhere else? That would be absolutely crazy. But that was what Hong Kong was, and I think it's still in people's hearts. That is what they're cracking down on.

My father is an amalgamation of all these things—this stowaway who arrived in Hong Kong almost 60 years ago, who is now here fighting for his home and its freedoms.

[Jonathan Price]

If I can add to that, this is high stakes for Hong Kong and for China. They've picked on the biggest fish they could find. They're not the wealthiest, as there are wealthier.

As Sébastien says, there are wealthier men in Hong Kong whom they didn't need to pick on because they had already kowtowed to the Chinese government, but this is a man who embodied independence and the independent spirit, as well as the freedoms of speech and protest. They found them all encapsulated in this one extraordinary man, and they recognized that if they could successfully target him with a national security law, it would send a very powerful message to all sorts of corners of Hong Kong: those people who might want to speak freely, those people who might want to trade freely and those people who might want to protest peacefully. All of these things that he did, they can crush in one go.

As you know, the national security law has a 100% conviction rate, so they can be fairly sure that they will succeed—and they inevitably will. The reason for targeting him with the national security law.... Don't forget they've already targeted him and convicted him for offences under the Basic Law, like peaceful protest-type offences and free speech-type offences.

They introduced the national security law in 2020 in order to be able to infer that someone like Jimmy Lai presents a threat to national security. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Jimmy Lai was standing up for the national security of Hong Kong. He was not a radical. He was seeking to maintain the status quo. The radicals are the Chinese authoritarians creeping in from the north. They want to change the way of life in Hong Kong—not someone like Jimmy Lai. That's why the national security law is so pernicious and that's why they've targeted him with it.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Thank you for that. That was extremely insightful.

I'll take the minute I have left to ask a question of Hong Kong Watch about what Canada can do.

As you know, I used to be an adviser with the Harper government before the people of Canada asked us to leave. I've been watching Apple Daily ever since.

When you say to sanction individuals, who do you have in mind and why, specifically?

[Katherine Leung]

Thank you for the question. I have here with me a list of four Hong Kong officials who hold property in Canada and who are directly involved in either supporting or implementing the national security law.

First I have Wong Kam-sing, the secretary of the environment. He currently owns a property along with his wife in Vancouver. As part of the executive council, he publicly supports and is responsible for collectively implementing the national security law.

I also have Andrew Lam Siu-lo and Kennedy Wong Ying-ho. They're both members of the “patriots only” Legislative Council, and they currently own property in Canada.

I have Eliza Chan, who is a non-official member of the executive council. She currently owns two apartments in Toronto. She's part of chief executive John Lee's cabinet, and she publicly supports the national security law.

I'll note that these are just the people we know about. We have no way of knowing who else might hold property in Canada, and we urge the Canadian government to undertake an audit of the financial and personal connections that Hong Kong officials and their partners or spouses have in Canada, including, of course, the chief executive and his cabinet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Majumdar.

I now invite Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe to take the floor for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With tongue in cheek, I'd like to salute the four people who were just mentioned. That's some Québécois humour.

Mr. Lai, what would happen if someone in Hong Kong showed support for your father? Is that possible, first of all? Would people dare to do that? If someone dared to do it, what do you think would happen to them?

[Sébastien Lai]

The feed is a bit grainy, so I didn't hear the full question. Was it about whether someone could show open support for my father in Hong Kong? Yes.

It would be incredibly hard to show open support for my father and anything related to democracy in Hong Kong. It's hard to describe the current climate, but suffice it to say that all the freedoms Hong Kong had, which were taken for granted, are no longer there. At one point, even holding a white piece of paper was an issue.

There's also the Tiananmen Square vigil. That didn't happen last year. It was the only territory belonging to China where you could still commemorate and pay respect to people who died in Tiananmen Square, and that is no longer a thing in Hong Kong.

I think that shows you exactly where Hong Kong is now.

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

That leads me to a question for the representative of Hong Kong Watch.

There is, after all, a large Hong Kong-Canadian community here in Canada. We talked earlier about transnational repression. Could that be a concern here as well for people who want to show their support for Jimmy Lai?

[Katherine Leung]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, one hundred per cent. Definitely I've heard cases first hand. I've talked to people in the community who have told me that after attending even community events with the name “Hong Konger” in them, people showed up outside their home and took photos of them. That's only the surface of it.

I've heard cases from Hong Kongers who came here to Canada to escape political persecution in Hong Kong. After attending a pro-democracy rally in Canada, they returned home with flyers, stickers and posters of pro-democracy sentiments and put them up in the room that they were renting. They were subsequently evicted for other reasons.

This individual found out later that the landlord was a core member of the United Front Work Department. This is here on Canadian soil.

Even besides the things we know about foreign interference, like the overseas police stations or intimidation faced by community members, this is a day-to-day reality for Hong Kongers in Canada, as well as for Uyghurs, Tibetans, Falun Gong practitioners and other dissident groups that have come to Canada in search of freedom, only to find that the Chinese Communist Party's far-reaching hand is still here.

I really urge the government to take a more serious look at the community impact of transnational repression.