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

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Welcome to meeting number 45 of the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today we resume our study of the detention of Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong, after which we will continue our examination of the draft report concerning inclusive international education for people with disabilities.

To ensure the meeting will go smoothly, I would like to outline a few rules to follow for witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference via Zoom, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone. When you are not speaking, your microphone should be on mute.

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

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

I would now like to welcome the witnesses joining us today. From the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, we have former ambassador James B. Cunningham, board chair. From Canada-Hong Kong Link, we welcome, by video conference, Mr. Fernando Cheung, representative and former member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council. From Hong Kong Watch, we welcome, by video conference, Mr. Benedict Rogers, managing director and co-founder. Finally, from Journalists for Human Rights, we welcome, by video conference, Mr. Zein Almoghraby, director of International Programs.

Thank you for joining us today. You’ll each have a maximum of five minutes for your remarks, after which we’ll move on to questions from subcommittee members. I’ll let you know when you have one minute left.

Mr. Cunningham, we’ll start with you.

Welcome to our committee.

The floor is yours for five minutes.

[James Cunningham, Board Chair, The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation to meet with the subcommittee today.

This committee has heard much already about Jimmy Lai and repression in today's Hong Kong. It is an undeniable fact, no matter how hard the Chinese Communist Party and its instruments in Hong Kong pretend otherwise, that the freedoms and rights promised under the Sino-British agreement have been gutted.

Today I would like to discuss why the people, Parliament and Government of Canada, or of any country which values freedom, democracy and justice, should care about Jimmy, Hong Kong's political prisoners and Hong Kong itself.

When I arrived as U.S. Consul General in 2005, Hong Kong was the most free part of China and prided itself on being Asia's world city. People like me hoped that Hong Kong could, over time, provide an example to China of what a free—or at least more free—Chinese society and economy could become. I also met Jimmy then, and we and our families became, and remain, personal friends.

Today Hong Kong has become the place where one can witness the clash between Xi Jinping's vision of an advancing authoritarian world order and the vision set out in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, a vision embraced by Canada and aspired to by most people the world over. Xi has long been clear about his ambitions, though we have not paid attention until recently. The lure of the Chinese economy, and what turned out to be false hope about the nature of China's role in the international community, blurred the reality of Xi's drive to overcome the liberal values on which so much depends.

To see Xi's vision for the future in real time, look no further than Hong Kong. The freedoms and way of life promised by China for at least 50 years after the handover no longer exist, except to the extent that the authorities say they do—at their discretion. Rule of law, once a core value, has become rule by law at the disposal of the authorities. Hong Kong once embodied liberties not available to mainland Chinese. Jimmy and the more than 1,700 political prisoners languishing in Hong Kong jails for peaceful political activity, which was previously protected in Hong Kong, give evidence that those liberties are no longer available as a matter of right to the people of Hong Kong as well.

What becomes of Jimmy and the freedom in Hong Kong matters, because the erosion of freedom and fundamental Liberal values there raises the risk for all of us over time. If people of goodwill stand aside and fail to resist that erosion, our vision of values becomes weaker. Jimmy chose his path when he did not need to. He had options. He chose to stand against the authoritarians in Beijing, against repression, and for the principles and values of a free and democratic world, and to stand for the promise of Hong Kong and its people.

I recall the words of the German Lutheran minister who famously regretted his failure to speak out when the Nazis came for the socialists, and then the trade unionists and then the Jews: He lamented, “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”. I have long remembered those words. Jimmy Lai is standing his ground for all of us. We owe it to our people and our children to speak for him and the people of Hong Kong.

The Canadian government should press for the release of Jimmy and all political prisoners. The Canadian government should sanction chief executive John Lee and other senior officials—an action currently under consideration before the U.S. Congress. Parliament should demand the removal of all non-permanent foreign judges from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, including former Canadian Chief Justice McLachlin. Their continuing presence confers an air of respectability when rule of law as protection of freedom has collapsed. The government should also close the Hong Kong economic and trade office in Toronto, which now operates not on behalf of an autonomous Hong Kong but on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party, with all that entails. Finally, I urge you not to forget Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong.

Mr. Chair, thank you and the members of the subcommittee for your time and attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Cunningham.

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

[Fernando Cheung, Representative and Former Member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, Canada-Hong Kong Link]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, esteemed members of the international human rights subcommittee. I'm Fernando Cheung, a former legislative councillor in Hong Kong. Today I stand before you representing Canada-Hong Kong Link, a Canadian registered organization established in 1997 with the aim of promoting democracy, freedoms and the rule of law in Hong Kong post handover to China, along with safeguarding national interest, security and democracy in Canada.

To many Hong Kong Canadians, Jimmy Lai is more than just a media tycoon. He is a valiant defender of freedoms in Hong Kong. The first time I met Mr. Lai was in 2014 during the umbrella movement, in a tent in an occupied area close to the Hong Kong government headquarters.

Jimmy Lai's journey of persistent struggle under Communist rule reflects the political changes that Hong Kong has gone through. An international and free society before its handover to Communist China, Hong Kong has gone through a “one country, two systems” transition period on its journey to become a police state, a vast prison without walls, under the Hong Kong national security law.

In a time of grave challenges under the Hong Kong national security law, Lai chose his principles over money or even personal freedom. As the publisher and owner of Apple Daily and Next media group, he's willing to sacrifice his own freedom by staying behind to defend the freedoms of this city that he profoundly cherishes.

Jimmy Lai's trial is the most high-profile prosecution in the Hong Kong government's crackdown on independent media. Without independent media or sources of information, it is extremely difficult for Canadian businesses or civil society organizations alike to accurately assess the risks and opportunities there.

The fact that Lai faces the prospect of life imprisonment on the trumped-up charge of colluding with foreign powers is just one of many red flags warning Canadian businesses that Hong Kong no longer has the rule of law and is not a safe place to operate. Such severe penalties for vaguely defined offences under the national security law have created "white terror" in Hong Kong, where an estimated 500,000 Canadians live. But the Chinese government has stated that this draconian law applies everywhere on the planet, creating a chilling effect that threatens freedom of expression even in Canada, particularly for those Canadians who have family and other connections in Hong Kong or mainland China.

Jimmy Lai is fighting on the front lines of a global struggle against forces of oppression that threaten freedom everywhere. We strongly urge our government to take a number of actions.

Closely monitor the trials of Jimmy Lai and the 47 accused because of their involvement in the Hong Kong primary election and demand the immediate release of all political prisoners under prosecution of the national security law.

Use our Magnitsky law to call to account the human rights violators who aim to put Jimmy Lai behind bars for life. As we have done with Russian human rights violators, we should freeze the assets owned by these officials under sanction as well as their immediate family members in Canada.

Closely monitor the implementation of Basic Law article 23 legislation and assess its impacts on civil liberties and freedoms in Hong Kong, especially on Canadians living there and the Canadian businesses operating in Hong Kong.

To protect diaspora communities from foreign interference, the Canadian government needs to pass the foreign influence transparency registry in Parliament without further delay, before the next election is called. The passage of this registry should not be bundled with the final report of the public inquiry.

The Canadian consulate general in China and Hong Kong should start registering all Canadian residents and citizens in Hong Kong and mainland China. Canada needs to establish an exit plan to prepare for the worst scenario in case of China's attack on Taiwan, which would lead to immediate and rapid deterioration of the situation in Hong Kong and the mainland.

Together, let us stand in solidarity with Jimmy Lai and all those fighting for freedom and justice in Hong Kong and beyond.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Cheung.

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

[Benedict Rogers, Chief Executive and Co-Founder, Hong Kong Watch]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is an honour to testify today. In doing so, I wish to endorse all of the recommendations of the previous two witnesses and of those who appeared last week, especially the call to sanction those responsible for human rights violations in Hong Kong.

I have the privilege of being able to call Jimmy Lai a friend. I have been named several times by the prosecution in his trial as a “collaborator” simply for having met and communicated with Mr. Lai on many occasions.

The absurdity of the charges against Mr. Lai is illustrated by the evidence cited by the prosecution in recent weeks, which includes, for example, a WhatsApp message that Mr. Lai sent to me in 2019, asking me to request the last governor of Hong Kong and a patron of Hong Kong Watch, Lord Patten, to provide a comment to a journalist from Apple Daily, the pro-democracy newspaper that Mr. Lai founded and owned; and also a WhatsApp message he reportedly sent to one of his staff after meeting me for the first time in 2017, encouraging that employee to follow up with me. These perfectly normal actions by a newspaper publisher are now being presented in court as evidence of alleged crimes.

As the head of Mr. Lai's international legal team, Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC, whom you heard last week, puts it, Mr. Lai, a 76-year-old entrepreneur and British citizen, is charged under the national security law for conspiracy to collude with foreign forces, but in reality, what that means is conspiracy to commit journalism, conspiracy to talk about politics with politicians, and conspiracy to discuss human rights issues with human rights organizations. His trial is emblematic of the Chinese Communist Party’s all-out assault on Hong Kong’s basic freedoms.

For the final year of its existence, I had the honour of contributing a weekly column to the English-language online version of Apple Daily. I have unreserved admiration for its spirit and the courage of its staff. Its forced closure, the arrest of several of its editors, and the trial of Mr. Lai himself are a complete affront to press freedom. Indeed, media freedom in Hong Kong today lies in tatters, as a 2022 report by Hong Kong Watch titled “In the Firing Line” details.

Mr. Lai is a devout Catholic, and while his imprisonment and prosecution are not directly due to his religious beliefs, indirectly they represent the erosion of freedom of religion in Hong Kong because his pro-democracy campaign was inspired and informed by his faith. Hong Kong Watch recently published the first-ever report on this topic, titled “Sell Out My Soul”, which we launched in the Parliament of Canada last November.

Mr. Chair, the evidence presented by the witnesses for the prosecution against Mr. Lai is unsound. The UN special rapporteur on torture has expressed serious concerns that Andy Li, due to testify in the trial soon, was tortured during his detention on the mainland and will be providing inadmissible evidence in the trial. This raises concerns about the risks of torture and mistreatment, as well as the rule of law, in Hong Kong.

Other witnesses in the trial are likely to have appeared under duress. It is important to note that Hong Kong, unlike mainland China, has signed, ratified and incorporated into the Basic Law the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, so mistreatment of prisoners is a direct violation of Hong Kong’s international obligations.

Canada should note the call by five UN special rapporteurs for Mr. Lai’s release on the eve of the recent universal periodic review of China at the United Nations, as well as the recommendations by 18 member states on human rights in Hong Kong during the UPR, and the specific call by the United Kingdom for Mr. Lai’s release.

I welcome Canada’s recommendations at the UPR to “[e]nsure Hong Kong upholds its responsibilities under the ICCPR” and to “[r]epeal the...National Security Law”. Canada also highlighted transnational repression. I urge Canada to repeat that call at every opportunity.

I echo the call by my colleague Katherine Leung last week for the use of sanctions, and I urge Canada to use every opportunity unilaterally, bilaterally and multilaterally to call for Mr. Lai's immediate and unconditional release.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

[Zein Almoghraby, Director of International Programs, Journalists for Human Rights]

Thank you.

Honourable members of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights and colleagues, good afternoon.

I am here presenting this testimony on behalf of my organization, Journalists for Human Rights, based on our 20-year global record of defending human rights in the most difficult and challenging environments, working with courageous journalists and civic actors to stand against oppression, marginalization and instability and, most importantly, to hold governments to account.

At JHR, we have been dealing with various oppressive power structures and the mechanisms that enable their tactics to silence the pro-human rights and democratic voices. In the context of today's testimony, we have monitored the actions of the Government of China in mainland China, in the special administrative regions—SARs—and in neighbouring countries across the Indo-Pacific: actions within a holistic strategy to silence opposing voices, crush democratic spaces and manipulate facts and truths.

If the collapse of the Soviet Union has provided authoritarian regimes in the late eighties and early nineties with lessons on what not to do, the Government of China has provided authoritarian regimes with a blueprint, a road map, of what to do to hold on to power regardless of any democratic considerations.

The ruling Chinese Communist Party has maintained a constant effort to balance regime stability against reform priorities. This includes the complete control of media and communication channels within both the mainland and the SARs and, in particular, Hong Kong, which should possess a higher degree of autonomy from China's central government.

Since 1997, Hong Kong has experienced a gradual downfall of freedoms, which were once protected under the “one country, two systems” principle that guaranteed a higher degree of autonomy, including freedom of speech and freedom of the press, guarantees that were not respected with the introduction of the national security law in 2020. Since the law came into force, hundreds of protesters, activists and former opposition lawmakers have been arrested, many news outlets have been shut down and pro-democracy leading figures continue to be prosecuted.

Jimmy Lai's conviction is another milestone towards fully silencing Hong Kong. “Not guilty” was his answer to his prosecutors.

No one is guilty for being a journalist. Centralized dictatorships directly harm journalists with impunity through reputational, physical and monetary damage. They eliminate democratic spaces through controlling communication channels and monopolizing information.

We must draw attention to the fact that a defining characteristic of such regimes is to spill over their national borders into neighbouring countries and beyond. They are threatened by human rights and democracy. They implement their harmful ways against freedom of speech abroad, as they do at home.

China aims to heavily influence the international information environment. This includes propaganda, disinformation, misinformation and censorship, with a massive annual budget. In the Indo-Pacific region, China's information manipulation always aims to increase positive perceptions of the Communist Party while shaping narratives and influencing political outcomes. This strategy raises concerns about democratic integrity, societal stability and the potential for increased conflict and violence.

Additionally, the legitimacy of the coming 2024 and 2025 elections in the Indo-Pacific is at risk. Coordinated misinformation campaigns by players such as the Government of China undermine confidence in these democratic processes.

Honourable members and human rights advocates, it is critical for the Government of Canada to stand for human rights and democracy in the whole region of the Indo-Pacific, as it should elsewhere. It is crucial to support pro-human rights non-state actors—in particular, courageous journalists and media professionals such as Jimmy Lai—to promote and protect necessary freedoms, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also to ensure stability in a region of the world that is important to our country and defend principles that Canada stands for.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Almoghraby.

I’d like to thank the witnesses once again for their presence and their comments.

We’ll move on to the first round of questions from subcommittee members.

Mr. Majumbar, the floor is yours for seven minutes.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Thank you very much.

To all the presenters, we really appreciate the harrowing and insightful perspectives you have provided, both for Jimmy Lai, for Hong Kong, for the wider Indo-Pacific region and for our shared values of human rights.

Let me begin my directing my first question to Ben at Hong Kong Watch, with compliments to your colleague, Katherine Leung, who had mentioned to this committee specific people who could be sanctioned in Canada not only for their ties to the CCP and Beijing, but also for their family assets here.

Ben, let me ask you this. There have been incrementalist approaches to authoritarian encroachments on everything from Afghanistan to Ukraine to Hong Kong. I am grateful for the recommendations you and your team have made over the many years as we've watched this authoritarian march across the world. May I ask you this: if you were to be even bolder for the democratic world to rally around Jimmy Lai and the restoration of the Basic Law for Hong Kongers, including over 300,000 to 400,000 Canadian Hong Kongers today, what would be the next step after what's being proposed today?

[Benedict Rogers]

First of all, let me say that I think sanctions are absolutely essential. It's a case that we're making to Canada. We're also trying to make it to the United Kingdom. I think that if many democracies in the free world act together to impose sanctions, that would really, potentially, have a strong effect. I think it's essential. If the perpetrators of the tearing up of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the dismantling of Hong Kong's freedoms feel they are allowed to get away with what they've done with impunity, then they're just going to be emboldened to continue and to increase their aggression.

Beyond sanctions, I think western democracies—not just western democracies, democracies in general, the free world—really need to unite and act together. Moreover, of course, although this is outside the scope of your hearing today, Taiwan is increasingly in Beijing's sights. Unless we speak up for Jimmy Lai, we're not going to be in a position to stand effectively with Taiwan.

So we need to speaking up for Jimmy Lai, we need to speaking up for Hong Kong, and we also need to be prepared to stand up to Beijing over Taiwan.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Thank you very much for that. That was very comprehensive. I think you're setting the story of Jimmy Lai at the core of why his case is so critical to the era of competition.

First of all, Your Excellency, Ambassador, thank you for your tenure and service to the American people in some of the more interesting places around the world. Congratulations for wonderful run. It's great to see your being so active here on this file for your friend, our friend, Jimmy Lai.

Let me ask you something, sir. You mentioned that the Hong Kong economic and trade office that we have in Toronto could be something the Government of Canada could act to close. Toronto is also the core of international mining finance. A lot of the world's financial flows for critical minerals and more traditional resources are managed out of the Toronto Stock Exchange. Canada has a literacy when it comes to resources that few other countries can parallel.

In the name of Jimmy Lai and the promise of Hong Kong and capitalism that was supposed to be at the core of the Sino-U.K. declaration for Hong Kong, what could you recommend Canada do to curb Beijing's state-owned enterprise approaches on critical minerals that dominate developing nations across the Indo-Pacific and Africa and beyond?

[James Cunningham]

Thank you for your comments.

First, on the specific issue of the Hong Kong economic and trade office in Toronto, the reason we have spoken about its operations is that, at least, in the United States—and I assume here in Canada, and wherever else it's located throughout the world—it was established in recognition of Hong Kong's autonomy, a special status that no longer exists, which is why we and many others are recommending that its special privileges be revoked.

On the issue of critical minerals, this is something that is of concern to every country around the world. As in many other instances, we have collectively fallen into a situation where my country, and Canada and many other countries around the world, rely upon resources that are basically lodged in China one way or another, whether these are manufactured, mine-owned by contractor, or whatever.

One of the key things that has come to view in our own internal discussion in the United States about the future of our relationship with China—and it's something that I discussed with people in London and Berlin, when I was there earlier this year—is the need to diversify our resources and our supply chains across the board.

It's not just critical minerals. There are many other aspects of this problem. It's not to say that we need to break off or disrupt those exchanges of commercial interest, but we need to diversify them. Critical minerals, I'm glad to say, is something that is turning up as other countries start looking for them in their own territory. We have some great possibilities in the United States. I understand that you do here in Canada as well. There are other places in Europe and Scandinavia that can be exploited.

It's more expensive perhaps to do it in other countries, but it's also very necessary that we do that, both as a matter of industrial policy and also as a matter of government policy, because it is really a security issue over time to which we need to pay attention.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Thank you.

As a message to the CCP, looking at that resource stream could be very important, especially if it's anchored around Jimmy Lai.

Do I have a few seconds left to ask a quick question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

You have 18 seconds.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Maybe I'll reserve it for Fernando, for round two, but I might be asking you a question about how we can best assist the 300,000 to 400,000 Canadians in Hong Kong.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Majumdar.

I would like to invite Madam Damoff to take the floor, for seven minutes please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

I want to focus first on media freedom. We know that freedom of the press is a pillar of a healthy democracy. With the witnesses we had at our last meeting, we talked about the press, Apple Daily, in particular, being shut down, resulting in that that particular viewpoint now gone in Hong Kong.

I'm wondering if other media outlets, like The New York Times, have moved some of their staff to Seoul. Other media outlets have either closed or moved on. I wonder if you could talk about the impact on media freedom in Hong Kong from the closure of Apple Daily News, and also more broadly on what's happening right now in the country.

Ambassador, if you want to start, that would be great.

[James Cunningham]

Sure. I'll try to be briefer this time given the time limits.

It's actually a crucial element of what's happening. The way this works is that the government makes an example of one person, or one entity, and then that creates a chilling effect on everybody else. It then gradually moves forward.

The government closed Apple Daily. It blocked foreign journalists from coming back in. It has questioned journalists about what they're reporting, and when they're reporting it. It has just announced that those people who seek visas to go to Hong Kong will now be questioned on national security grounds to see if it's safe for them to come.

That's clearly a situation that's dangerous and inimical to free journalism and free media. The government has conditioned course instruction in Hong Kong universities. The list goes on and on. Where you end up with this is, and this is the genuis, if you will, of authoritarianism, people self-limit what they will say or do, because they are afraid of getting in trouble.

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

With Apple Daily closing, are there any media outlets that are reporting criticisms of the Chinese government or criticisms of the crackdown that's happening in Hong Kong?

[James Cunningham]

I don't read Chinese, but I suspect not.

There is an entity called the Hong Kong Free Press that is still doing a pretty decent job. It's illustrative to watch the South China Morning Post,, which used to provide pretty free commentary on Hong Kong society and politics. It's a good example of what I was just describing. It's still trying to report news, but it's clearly within certain boundaries.

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

Do any of the online witnesses want to comment on either of those before I move on?

[Benedict Rogers]

If I may add to that, Mr. Chair, I think Ambassador Cunningham has answered very comprehensively. There are just two other factors I would add.

One is the closure of most, if not all, of the other independent Chinese-language media, and particularly Stand News, which was the other major publication to be forced to close down. Many of its staff were arrested.

The other challenge for journalists, particularly foreign journalists, is the understandable unwillingness of people in Hong Kong to talk to journalists now. Even if journalists have the freedom to research and write stories, they struggle to find people to interview because of the national security law. That will become even more challenging when the new domestic security law, article 23, is imposed.

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

Are you seeing the media reflecting more state views now than they were? Are they parroting what the Chinese government wants them to say?

[Benedict Rogers]

There are many courageous reporters who are still trying to report news stories as best they can. However, certainly in terms of opinion pieces and commentary, my understanding from what I can see, both in the South China Morning Post and from what I learn of the Chinese-language media, is yes, they are parroting Beijing's line. This is particularly so for the pro-Beijing newspapers, which have long been doing that, but even the previously more moderate newspapers are finding it hard to be critical.