Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 4th, 2026

[Frederick John Packer]

I understand the reach of this subcommittee, but let me say that the primary responsibility of the Canadian government and our entire constitutional framework is in Canada—for the protection of Canadians and the well-being of persons within our jurisdiction, which means territory and nationality.

What I'm proposing is that we don't need to ask anyone else. We don't need to consider whether we can reach into the Islamic Republic of Iran, or deal with the Chinese state in Hong Kong over an investment fund. There is much we can and should do in Canada now. This includes both the protection services. We talked about policing—for example, not only that police at local levels be trained, but that there be coherence between the RCMP, CSIS.... I know that CSIS is not a policing agency, but I mean all of the agencies responsible for safety and security.

I work with scores of activists in exile. Most of them have problems that would traverse about seven different ministries in Canada. They have no idea how to do that.

This is the incoherence I'm talking about, and this is a domestic matter. It's not only a first priority, but also.... I have suggested, for example, creating not only a government that works better, but also dedicated bodies and institutions. This problem is of a complex and nuanced nature, but also has a particularly insidious character, and it is undermining our sovereignty. Most of the states in the world are now considered around the fragility index—the 70% of countries that are fragile, failing and so forth—and never mind the vigorous anti-democratic states.

We are a G7 democracy. Surely we can protect our own people within our own country. If we're not doing that, it's an indictment against own country. It's not what my parents fought the Second World War over.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

To finish up, I have about a minute or so. We looked at the international ring. We looked at sovereignty within our own country. Now let's go even closer.

My riding in Nova Scotia is quite rural. A lot of rural regions often rely heavily on community organizations, faith-based groups and local leaders, rather than larger institutions. What role do you think these localized networks can play in identifying and responding to cases of national repression?

[Frederick John Packer]

I believe they can play and do play a role.

If I understand correctly, CSIS, for many years, has had close relations. They understand the relations, the effects and what's going on from an information-gathering and intelligence perspective, and also the way in which some of these groups are instrumentalized as they are. That is something we need to pay attention to.

We should not be so naive as to think that the oceans protect us and that people are no longer connected. They are highly connected. If I want to know what's going on in Yemen right now, with all due respect, I don't call anyone in the Canadian government. I call Yemenis I know who are here in Ottawa and are directly connected in Yemen. That's the world in which live.

I'm not arguing not to have contact. I'm saying to take care. I'm not suggesting that we defer to the communities as if they will solve the problem, as we have with multicultural traditions. That is great. Like any Canadian, I'm connected with such groups myself, through marriages and so forth. Take care. This is crucially important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Ms. Fancy.

Now I would like to invite Mr. Davies to take the floor for five minutes, please.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to try to bring this down to more of a grassroots level.

Canadians who are watching this today probably won't understand much of what is being discussed today. We know, as you've all said, that transnational repression is pervasive and comprehensive and is often, if not most of the time, invisible and can't be tracked easily.

Dr. Juneau, give me a profile of who's doing this so that Canadians can understand it—just a slight bit of a snapshot.

You talked earlier about cyber-threats, economic threats and espionage. Everybody can understand the word “espionage” if they've watched Mission: Impossible. I'm looking for the typical profile of somebody who is engaged in transnational repression, so that Canadians might, in some way, have some hint of recognizing it.

[Thomas Juneau]

Who's doing this? First of all, in Canada, the big three are China, India and Iran. They are the countries that are the biggest perpetrators, but as mentioned a few times, there is a long list of other countries that are doing it on a smaller scale. By “smaller scale” I mean in terms of quantity, not in terms of nastiness. It can be as violent if not more so in multiple cases. Pakistan, Rwanda, Eritrea, Algeria, Tunisia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia—it's a very long list of perpetrators.

Why do they do it? By definition, autocratic governments—non-democratic governments—feel vulnerable. They feel insecure. They do not tolerate dissent or opposition because they consider it a threat to their very survival, as opposed to more limited threats. Therefore, they will target those opponents.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

To some degree, it's in self-defence, they would argue.

[Thomas Juneau]

In their perception, it is, yes.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Professor Packer, I love your first two names, by the way. I share them with you.

[Frederick John Packer]

They're great names.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

I was really interested in the structure that you recommended the Canadian Government take a look at. That would be starting right at the Privy Council level.

Can you give me an idea of whether anyone doing it right? Are there any countries, in your view, that have a handle on this and have something that we could actually take a look at?

[Frederick John Packer]

In short, I don't believe so.

I just spent a few days in Europe, in Vienna, for meetings of multilateral institutions and others. A few weeks before that, I was in Brussels. This included, by the way, meeting with NATO, with the European Union and at high levels.

I would say there is a general problem right now of incoherence and a kind of risk aversion in taking the necessary steps to proactively address this threat. It's a complex threat.

As my colleague Luke de Pulford mentioned, it's not a new phenomenon, strictly speaking. Karl Marx was pursued by Prussian agents in the 1840s. When I was a student in the United Kingdom in the 1980s, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis, through the Ba'ath Party, instrumentalized every single student as an informant. There was a parliamentary commission at the time, which you can look at. It's not strictly new.

What has changed is the nature and character of our relations, transnational telecommunications, the reach and the nuance—the means by which this is operationalized in very terrible ways, including assassinations in our own country. Many governments are caught off guard by this. The Westphalian model doesn't quite respond to it. It's kind of like dealing with cryptocurrency—what is it?—or a pandemic.

Canada needs to lead here. We're capable. We need to be proactive and not reactive. That's why I'm suggesting that at the top, we need someone who's in charge and says this is a real problem, and then our government takes the responsibility and assigns it.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Have you written on this at all?

[Frederick John Packer]

I have a bit, yes, specifically on the relationship with diasporas and others, because diasporas do not give us a sufficient framework. The responsibility question is a matter of international law and state responsibility—our responsibility as Canada. It's not just for Canadians but for our own territory and population. I could elaborate on it.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

I would be really interested in a literary review on how we deal with this and to look at a structure. It really is, as we've said, so pervasive, invisible, subversive, objective and subjective.

When I asked you whether anyone was doing it right, your answer was no. It's curious to me that if nobody is doing it right, how can we ever really expect to do it right? I guess I'm just looking for an opinion on that.

[Frederick John Packer]

My quick opinion is that I believe—and I spent 30 years of my professional life abroad and working for security organizations and others—we're the only country in the world where more than 50% of the population has a higher education. We have talented and capable people.

This is a question of grasping the threat as it is, dedicating some resources and being serious about it. I believe this is both a security and a democracy issue. For example, the commitment of our government to spend more money on traditional means of defence is fine, but all this soft stuff that is pervasive, very troubling and touching us directly is something we need to address and we can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Silver, I'd like us to discuss the case of Jimmy Lai, who is still imprisoned in Hong Kong under the notorious national security law. He's a British citizen. Therefore, there is a connection with transnational repression.

Something unusual happened here in Parliament. We had a member elected as a Conservative, Michael Ma, who crossed over to the Liberals. In fact, we all joke that this is the best thing that has happened to the Conservative caucus lately.

When he was a member of the Conservative Party, Mr. Ma was elected chair of the Canada-Hong Kong Parliamentary Friendship Group. Then, when he crossed the floor to join the Liberals, he made some very startling and unfortunate statements. He questioned whether there was forced labour in China, even though thousands of studies show that there is.

This is all related to Jimmy Lai. Why is it that, in the Parliament of Canada, the chair of the Canada—Hong Kong Parliamentary Friendship Group can question the existence of forced labour in China?

Also, how is it that this person remained silent about the tragedy affecting Mr. Lai and his family?

[Brandon Silver]

Thank you for the question. I will answer in English to be clearer.

First, I want to thank my colleague Luke de Pulford for raising how emblematic Jimmy Lai's trial is when it comes to transnational oppression. I want to expand on that.

To your question, MP Brunelle-Duceppe, about the need for Canada's Parliament and parliamentarians to be more focused and engaged on the case, it really cuts to core Canadian interests. The national security law under which he is being prosecuted is draconian and extraterritorial. What Hong Kong and its masters in Beijing feel that they can get away with in doing to Jimmy Lai, as the most prominent person being prosecuted under this law, will thereafter be applied to Canadians on Canadian soil.

When Parliament and government were not outspoken enough on Jimmy Lai's case earlier, we saw that happen. Thereafter, you had the same law being used to pursue bounties against Canadian citizens on Canadian soil.

As a middle power, engagement with the UN and multilateral institutions is a core part of our foreign policy and sovereignty. Even engaging with the United Nations can be criminalized under the national security law.

When a complaint was filed against the Chinese embassy, the UN asked, “Can anyone talking to us really be prosecuted under the NSL?” China's response is so brazen that China put it in writing. Article 56 says, yes, it can be the case. A Canadian in Canada engaging with the UN, even on Mr. Lai's case, can end up with a bounty and face a trial. We will risk greater and greater incursions on our own sovereignty via this law if we do not speak out more concertedly and concretely on Mr. Lai's case.

I want to commend the members of this committee who have held hearings on this case, which help sustain him and his family and shine a spotlight on these issues, including the efforts you all spearheaded to grant him honorary citizenship. Again, it's a testament to our values and helps to push back against efforts of transnational oppression. I would encourage any member who has not done so or who may engage adversely, as you suggested, to reconsider what the implications of that might be for Canada's sovereignty and Canadian citizens.

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

Meanwhile, Mr. Ma is still the chair of the Canada—Hong Kong Parliamentary Friendship Group.

Mr. de Pulford, I think some of your employees have experienced very tangible acts of transnational repression. I'm thinking in particular of AI-generated pornography.

Could you clarify that for the committee?

[Luke de Pulford]

I'm very grateful for the question. I'm also grateful to Dr. Juneau for mentioning the gendered nature of a lot of the online harassment.

I'll just give you an example. I run an institution and have quite a high profile. Nobody has ever made AI pornography of me. I get a lot of harassment, but I don't get that. I have two staff members and very recently a close colleague—Laura Harth, who I know has testified in front of you as well—who suffered extremely explicit, repeated AI pornography on all of their social media feeds. This is a common occurrence, and sadly, it's very often perpetrated from a different country, which brings into play other complexities when it comes to prosecuting it.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to mention that. It's a key aspect. It's a key technique that is used particularly against women to try to silence them when they're speaking up abroad.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you.

Now I will invite Mr. Zuberi to take the floor for two minutes.

Please be strict. You have two minutes for the questions and answers.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll continue with Mr. de Pulford.

We've heard a lot about the challenges and heard some of the suggestions on how there should be a greater working together by different Canadian agencies and other agencies in the world, but we didn't really talk much about legislation and suggested ideas around that, like best practices from other countries.

What have you seen in terms of best practices from other countries, from your research or from what you've heard within the space to address TNR? Do you want to share that with the committee?

[Luke de Pulford]

I have a couple of things to say about this. There are obviously many more incidents of transnational repression in Canada than there have been prosecutions, and that disparity ought to give the committee pause for thought. What's the gap there? Why aren't we identifying that gap and enabling prosecutions to happen?

In terms of good practice, one thing to say is that the issue of training police has been extremely high on everybody's list. I think Dr. Juneau mentioned the importance of trust. If victims of transnational repression do not trust the authorities, they will not report, and that's notwithstanding any of the difficulties, legal complexities or diplomatic obstacles in actually prosecuting.

It's extremely important that we have that training. In the United Kingdom, we have a defending democracy task force, which is attempting to come to grips with some of this and to link up various state institutions, but the legislation has to be enforced. Unless we have the desire to do that, we're not going to touch the sides of this problem.