Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Feb. 13th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Cheung. You got almost one minute extra.

[Fernando Cheung]

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you.

We will now move to the second round.

Ms. Vandenbeld, the floor is yours for five minutes.

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

Mr. Chair, I believe I still have a minute left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

I'm sorry. No. You had an extra minute.

Madam Vandenbeld, the floor is yours for five minutes, please.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for what is really vital testimony that they're giving here today.

I would like to direct my first question to Mr. Almoghraby, particularly because we heard in our last meeting that authoritarian states are working together. They're learning from one another. The tactics they're using, particularly tactics against journalists, are seen across different countries and different journalists. One thing you said made me question this, because you have said that it's not only the tactics of suppression of free speech in journalism that are being shared. You mentioned something that sounded like China is looking to control information, but not just within China, and that this is something that goes beyond those borders.

Of course, we know about disinformation and those sorts of things, but is this something that you're seeing more broadly? Is this something that you're seeing across the board in terms of information control no longer being geographically specific in the authoritarian countries where these sorts of things are happening?

[Zein Almoghraby]

To answer the first point about authoritarian regimes likening each other and collaborating, they collaborate directly and indirectly. Unfortunately, there's a form of collaboration whereby they literally send experts from China to other countries to teach them how to manage things, how to run things.

They do that with media and journalism in the Middle East, for example. They do that also in east Africa, where they will take people from the government or from the media to China to train them and prepare them. They don't hide it. They call it something like “telling the stories of China”, which means I'm going to teach you and train you how to do reporting the Chinese way to tell our stories.

They directly collaborate with these entities, and there is the indirect collaboration to the effect, “I'm sending you the blueprint. This works; this doesn't work”. That was implemented in two different places, in Vietnam, for example, in the early 1990s, where they paused laws. They wanted to go to more press freedom, but they made a law that you cannot publish anything without sending it first to a committee of the Communist Party in Vietnam. They meet every Tuesday, and they have to approve it; otherwise, you're committing a crime.

They did the same thing in Syria. They provided them with an approach where they could go into a more free market, but also saying to them that you don't have to have else free. You can keep all the political power and the media under your control, and you can benefit the people around the regime and the party officials, the high-ranking members.

When it comes to the geographic scope of it, I have a long list of documented actions by China. In my case, I focus more on the Indo-Pacific region, which is a massive region and has huge interests for both Canada and the global economy, etc.

The most terrifying things—I don't know what to call them—is that there are different approaches. In the private sector in Indonesia, for example, there is TV network. They buy time from them and they broadcast shows they produce. It's without any questioning, and it doesn't go through any editorial lines. There's no code of ethics for journalism. It's published or broadcasted exactly as if it were propaganda. The same applies to another radio network.

If we go to a different, more sophisticated approach, we can look at Pakistan. There is something called the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Media Forum, under which they're including how to fight misinformation that's deemed by the two governments to be propaganda and inappropriate.

It's cross-country collaboration that is being done to go after press freedom everywhere that is in their interest.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much. I think there's quite a bit there to delve into.

I wonder if any of the other witnesses want to answer that before I move on to my second question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

You have 25 only seconds.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I was going to ask about the change you've seen over time, but I guess I'll ask very quickly: Do you think that it is getting significantly worse as time goes on?

[Zein Almoghraby]

When it comes to the collaboration, etc., there will be, in the coming years, about 15, 16 or 17 elections that are very critical in the Indo-Pacific and they are making more investments with a massive budget.

The estimations are that it's increasing by the billions on an annual basis, so the impact is increasing, the effort is increasing and, most importantly and sadly, it's getting more sophisticated. It's more sophisticated than in other countries to the north when it comes to campaigns of misinformation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Almoghraby.

Thank you, Madam Vandenbeld.

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

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Thank you.

I'll delve right into this with Mr. Cheung, if that's okay with you, sir.

We have seen organizations inside Hong Kong working to undermine the efforts of the communists in Beijing to impose on them, and we've seen surveillance cameras being installed across Hong Kong, and news of that emerging just in the last week as further subversion by the national security law.

Let me ask you, Mr. Cheung, what is the scale of resistance that the people of Hong Kong are going to bring to the communists of Beijing, and do you fear or do you see an inflection point from when peaceful protest becomes something more robust?

[Fernando Cheung]

It is dangerous to talk about resistance in Hong Kong now, publicly or even in private. As you mentioned, there are multiple layers and various tools being utilized in the surveillance. There are laws and regulations that encourage reporting of any suspicious speeches or acts. There's a culture of reporting each other for things that are not politically correct, and the authorities are encouraging that as well. It is getting so difficult that I don't see how the resistance can become organized.

There are certainly a lot of contentions and a lot of anger among people who have gone through the 2019-20 anti-extradition movement that turned into a democracy movement, but people cannot communicate openly about their feelings. I can't really see a turning point until people understand it is safe again for them to talk about it or express their political opinions openly. With the current repressive regime and more draconian laws coming, I really don't see that being on the horizon.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

That's a very disturbing observation, Mr. Cheung, and I'm grateful for your candour on that, but let me delve a little deeper.

With the strength of the repression that Beijing is imposing on Hong Kongers, creating a culture where people are trafficking in conspiracy, we know that unless Hong Kongers, including Canadians in Hong Kong, find ways to be more resistant, it creates pressures and difficulties for partnerships to succeed with those people. Do you have tools, suggestions or thoughts as to where Canada could look for how we can help Hong Kongers protect what freedoms they have as they scale their protest to the challenges that Jimmy Lai is encountering today?

[Fernando Cheung]

It is important for the Canadian government to speak up—to speak up for Jimmy Lai, to have a strong stance and speak up on anything that the Hong Kong government is deemed to be violating in international covenants, such as ICCPR—so that the Hong Kong government and Canadians living in Hong Kong understand Canada's official position.

Continuing to provide risk assessment information to Canadians living in Hong Kong is very important. We certainly understand that it is getting more and more difficult to protect Canadian citizens living in Hong Kong any further—take a look at the cases of the two Michaels—and Hong Kong has become much like the rest of China. The current national security regime, the laws that govern these areas, are pretty much in line with the mainland, so it is becoming so difficult that I don't see, other than providing more information to them, that anything else can be done. In addition, of course, there should be an exit plan, as I mentioned in my recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, the floor is yours for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Rogers, we haven't had much time to expand on the reason for the lawsuit and demonstrate that it's not credible. In Mr. Lai's case, it's important for the subcommittee to understand why this trial is not credible. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

[Benedict Rogers]

Thank you. I think there are four main reasons why the trial is not credible. The first is that Mr. Lai was, as you mentioned, denied his original choice of legal counsel.

Secondly, the judges, as in all national security trials, are hand-picked by the government and are known to be judges who will take a pro-government line.

Thirdly, as I mentioned, much of the witness testimony is questionable. There is one particular witness, due to appear soon, whom the United Nations has said has been tortured.

Fourthly, if you look at the evidence that the prosecution is putting forth, you will see that they're citing what, in Canada, in the United Kingdom and in any free society, would be perfectly normal day-to-day activities. The idea that a WhatsApp message from Jimmy Lai to me, asking me to ask Chris Patten to make a comment to a journalist—that idea—is admissible evidence of a crime is absurd.

The prosecution is presenting a case that is just not credible.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Rogers, I would really like to focus on Mr. Lai's case. How important is it, not only for Mr. Lai, but also for his legal team and his family—his son Sebastien comes to mind—who continue to fight for him, that Canada take a clear stance on this case?

[Benedict Rogers]

I think it's incredibly important. I welcome the fact that you had Sebastian Lai here last week. I also welcome the fact that Sebastian has, in previous months, met with government officials in Canada. He also met the British foreign secretary, David Cameron, just before Christmas.

I think it's very important that as Sebastian so courageously campaigns for his father, our countries and others support him, and through supporting him, we support his father as much as we can.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Cunningham, I'd like to ask you the same question, but a little differently, since you've held a fairly senior diplomatic position. How is it perceived by the diplomatic community of free and independent states when a country like Canada takes a clear position on a case like Mr. Lai's?

[James Cunningham]

The whole trial itself is based upon a fallacious premise that, through both diplomatic and media means, we need to keep rebutting. There is no crime here, and yet Jimmy has already been pronounced guilty by the Chinese political authorities. If you go back and look at the media, you see that they have already termed him the most dangerous criminal in Hong Kong. They predetermined what the attitude is. There's no question of innocence or guilt; it's just a question of their mounting a show to demonstrate that he's guilty of something. He's guilty of being political. He's guilty of reporting. He's guilty of supporting democracy. He's guilty of standing at a vigil. Those are the things that he's guilty of.

The diplomatic and media worlds need to keep pointing out this truth. The whole premise of what the Hong Kong government and the Chinese authorities are trying to do is to pretend that everything's fine—this is just one episode of one criminal. It's not just one, by the way, as we've noted. There are more than 1,700 political prisoners in jails. One of the more pernicious things that the authorities are doing is the so-called “Hong Kong 47”. The other witnesses, who are testifying against Jimmy, are being held without bail until the conclusion of the trial, to exert pressure on them and to make sure that they say the right thing when they come before a court.

This whole thing is a farce, and the only way to rebut it is to use the diplomatic means and the media means that all of us have at our disposal—political means—to constantly make the case that what's happening here is completely unjust. Jimmy is a symbol of these many other people whose rights are being trampled now.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Mr. Johns, the floor is yours for five minutes.