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

[Katherine Leung]

Thank you for the question.

On the immigration front, a barrier that lots of Hong Kongers have faced, who are newly released from prison, or who have been charged but then not convicted, is the requirement for a police certificate. This is an issue, because when you ask the Hong Kong police for a police certificate, it is signalling to them that you are planning to leave the territory. They might put you in custody again before you leave, or they might have you on some kind of a watch-list. We know as well that people exiting Hong Kong have trouble moving their money from Hong Kong to overseas territories, so that it is a concern as well.

A problem with the police certificate, even if one might be able to get it, is that some convictions have Canadian law equivalence. For example, the wielding of a dangerous weapon, when that weapon in question might be an umbrella, a laser pointer, or a pen, might look to an IRCC officer like a legitimate offence, but that is not the case.

I have spoken to many MPs and IRCC officials, and they have assured me that Hong Kongers who have a legitimate reason to believe that their persecution is political do have a way out and don't have to submit a police certificate if they make that clear in the application. However, not a lot of Hong Kongers know about this, and that's been a difficulty.

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

Thank you.

I'll go over to the legal team on specific international legal mechanisms that Canada could be involved in triggering.

[Caoilfhionn Gallagher]

Thank you.

The first thing we would say is that with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Canada can support that in writing to, and making a filing with, that working group to raise concerns that Jimmy Lai is arbitrarily detained. That's something that we would welcome and would ask for support with. We can talk to you in more detail about that.

The second and third items relate to the UN special rapporteur on torture and the UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism. The UN special rapporteur on torture, Dr. Alice Edwards, is presenting her annual report, I believe, on March 12 in Geneva. Canada has a speaking slot in the interactive dialogue on that day; and we think, first of all, Canada should publicly raise concerns about the reliance upon coerced evidence obtained through torture, and the absence of any investigation. To be clear, as soon as you have a credible, reasonable suspicion of torture having been used, as a matter of international law, a state has an obligation to investigate that.

Now, The Washington Post, on December 17, published a very detailed piece. Shibani Mahtani, the journalist, after a one-year investigation concluded that Andy Li had been tortured and that the evidence he provided against Jimmy Lai had been coerced. China has done absolutely nothing about that.

Dr. Alice Edwards has written to China to ask why there has been no investigation, what they are doing about this and why they are relying upon this man in Jimmy Lai's trial. They've yet to have a reply. She's spoken out about it publicly. Canada should be supporting her in that regard. We haven't yet seen any states supporting Dr. Alice Edwards in the statement she made last week. It's imperative they do so as quickly as possible, and we would certainly expect to see them do so publicly on March 12.

The last one is the special rapporteur on counter-terrorism. The national security law is a misuse of counter-terrorism law, by its very nature. Canada has said that in other fora. It should say it in the United Nations, loud and clear, when the rapporteur delivers his annual report, which I believe will also happen on March 12.

I think all eyes should be on what Canada does in Geneva in mid-March in relation to these issues. They are international mechanisms that can be used—there's an opportunity coming up within five weeks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Madam.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, you now have the floor for four minutes.

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

Thank you for giving me another round of questions, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Leung, just so you know, we're trying to deal with this on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We talked about it a little, but it hasn't been resolved yet. With respect to police certificates in Hong Kong, you have an ally. We will continue to work on that.

Mr. de Pulford, democracies, including Canada, tend to behave a certain way when it comes to China. If Jimmy Lai's trial were to take place in another country, Canada would have likely already called for his release. We do business with China. We see countries behaving this way on a number of issues, not only Canada, but a number of other democracies around the world, every time China is involved.

What do you think is causing this behaviour, and what can be done to stop it?

[Luke de Pulford]

I think some in the administration here in Canada would legitimately seek the excuse that if the U.K. isn't moving as the principal duty holder under the Sino-British Joint Declaration with China, why should they? I've heard that argument.

Actually, the truth is, as Chung Ching rightly said, that this is a treaty launched at the United Nations, which means that the duty bearers are actually all of us, including Canada, so I think you're right to point out that issue.

There's something that has not been mentioned, but that Canada could certainly do. Hong Kong bizarrely enough remains a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which does have a dispute resolution mechanism. Any country could make a complaint under the ICCPR, and Canada should do so. They could do so. It might well result in China's withdrawing from the ICCPR, which I'd foresee as pretty likely. But that is not a reason not to do it. A complaint put forward under the ICCPR is something they can certainly do and lead on.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. de Pulford.

Mr. Lai, it's true, this is my last turn. If there's one last thing you'd like to say to the committee, you have carte blanche. Say what you have to say, whatever you want to say. I'll leave it up to you.

[Sébastien Lai]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe.

First of all, I want to thank all of you again. What happened in Hong Kong and what's happening with my father is, I believe, a story of hope. It's a hope that all people are drawn to freedom, the freedoms that you have in Canada. There is this false narrative about its being about east versus west, that these freedoms are all western values. You could easily see that it is not true. If you look at the passports of all of the elites or their children, they all hold British passports, Canadian passports, or Australian passports.

We have a government that says one thing and does another thing. We have to show these people, the Hong Kong government and the Government of China, that the freedoms that we have in the west are freedoms that we are a) willing to defend and b) it's not a freedom that is traded like a currency. It's also a human right.

I'm incredibly moved and so grateful that you are supporting my father and really doing right by the democratic values that underpin Canada. I hope you continue to do the same. I just wanted to, again, thank all of you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe.

We will now go to Gord Johns for four minutes.

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

Mr. Lai, is there anything you haven't heard—and I know you've been in and out of the conversation—that you would like to add to, that you would like to call upon Canada and this committee and Canadians to help support the release of your father to ensure that also this doesn't happen again?

[Sébastien Lai]

Is there anything I'd like to add? Not particularly. I think everything that was said on the panel was very extensive and raised many good points. I've got nothing to add, but I'll think on that, and if I do, I'll send it over, if that's okay.

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

Yes, that's no problem. Thank you, Mr. Lai.

[Sébastien Lai]

Thank you, sir.

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

Ms. Gallagher, you talked about the Human Rights Council and the importance of the UN Human Rights Council meeting that's coming up. Can you talk a little bit more about what Canada could be doing in taking leadership there?

[Caoilfhionn Gallagher]

The upcoming Human Rights Council session is going to be looking at four topics which are relevant to what we've talked about today. The most important ones are probably torture and counterterrorism, but there's also the special rapporteur on peaceful assembly who's also giving his annual report and the special rapporteur on human rights defenders, who is looking at the issue of transnational repression of critics of authoritarian states and the long arm of the state reaching out in the way that we've seen China doing. Those are four opportunities that Canada has to speak out on those issues.

As we saw recently that at the UPR of China, some 161 states spoke. Canada raised human rights concerns. We're grateful for that, but we saw real organization with pro-China voices, a whole range of states that gave boiler-plate statements and praised China in a number of ways.

We need to see much more organization with states that have concerns about the issues that we've raised today. The 24 countries that signed a Media Freedom Coalition statement raising concerns about Jimmy Lai's case and about media freedom in Hong Kong should be ensuring that they're organized before the Human Rights Council session. We think this is an opportunity for Canada to show real leadership, to shine a spotlight on these issues.

Very practically, what they can do, first of all, is to ensure that in the five weeks in the lead-up to the Human Rights Council, they're engaging with other states to see what these other states are doing and to ensure that a spotlight is shone on these issues.

Second, they should be preparing to engage with a Chinese delegation bilaterally when they're in Geneva. That's an opportunity to speak bilaterally, raise these concerns and press home the messages that we've been speaking about.

Third, publicly, in their own time, which is even shorter than the time we have here—they usually get two minutes and 30 seconds—they should be highlighting these issues and this case and making sure that the international community is making its voice heard loud and clear and that China hears it.

We know that China responds to what happens at the Human Rights Council. We've seen that in other cases. We've seen it have real leverage. We've also seen Canada in other cases secure release of political prisoners in other circumstances. It's high time that we saw the international community doing all it can to ensure that Jimmy Lai is released before we see this British man die behind bars for being a journalist and for being a pro-democracy campaigner.

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

Ms. Leung, I have about 30 seconds if there's anything that you'd like to add.

[Katherine Leung]

Thank you.

I'll reiterate the importance of Canada actually showing China and Hong Kong that there are consequences for their human rights violations. First of all, on sanctions, as I've mentioned time and time again, we need to show them that they cannot get away with putting people in prison for made-up reasons in a lot of the cases, and in other cases, where they're exercising rights that they have, in the case of Hong Kong.

Another thing that I would like to underline is that Canada also must urge Canadian businesses to really carefully consider whether they want to continue doing business in Hong Kong. An international financial hub is not a place where one can get thrown behind bars for saying the wrong things. Hong Kong is deteriorating. Its business environment is deteriorating, and the time to exit was yesterday.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you very much, Ms. Leung.

Esteemed guests, thank you for your testimony and for participating in our study on Jimmy Lai's detention in Hong Kong. We appreciate your taking the time to come and share your expertise with us on this important issue. If you have any additional information to send to the subcommittee, please contact the clerk. Thank you very much.

Members of the subcommittee, we will now take a two to three-minute break before discussing the next meeting. It will be a special meeting to finalize the study of our report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

I call the meeting back to order, please.

Members of the subcommittee, before we adjourn, I'd like to get your comments on planning an additional meeting to consider our draft report.

Mr. Johns.

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

From talking to different members and from what I've seen in the report so far, I don't think there's a lot of disagreement. Is there any chance that we could just tack it on to the next meeting and have an extra half-hour? That way, we don't have to bring everyone together for a whole meeting. That would just be my suggestion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Ms. Damoff.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just tagging along with what Mr. Johns just said. I had asked if we could do an extra meeting with a couple of witnesses on this. I'm just wondering if we could do an hour with those additional witnesses and then just finish up that report in the second hour. I don't think it will take a full hour, but I also don't want it to be rushed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Okay. We also have another option.

We can also extend the second meeting by an hour in order to finish the report. It's up to you. What do you think?

Mr. Genuis.

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

If members are agreeable to this, what about if we take an hour and a half for the witnesses and then set aside an hour for concluding the report? Who knows? Maybe we won't need it, but that seems like a reasonable way to meet in the middle.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I absolutely concur with what Mr. Genuis said, but I'm just wondering, with regard to the witnesses for this study, whether or not we still have an opportunity to submit a couple of names. I just want to submit one name, actually.