Foreign Affairs Committee on March 10th, 2016

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

What I'd like to do is read this motion for you: “That the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development recommend to the House, in its statutory review of the Special Economic Measures Act which is up for review as of March 23, 2016 as mandated by section 20(1) of the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, as proposed during the 2nd Session of the 41st Parliament, by former member of Parliament Irwin Cotler in section 3 of Bill C-689, an act to enact the global human rights accountability act and to make related amendments to the Special Economic Measures Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which authorizes Canada to publicly identify and impose sanctions, in the form of banning visas and freezing assets of human rights violators, including those individuals responsible for the persecution and murder of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, democratic opposition leader Boris Nemtsov and the imprisonment of Ukrainian pilot, Nadiya Savchenko, who has been held hostage in Russia for 21 months.”

We'll distribute the motion. I would just ask the chair if we could have some time at the end of the session to talk about the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Yes, that's fine.

Mr. Allison has told you what he's proposing as a notice of motion that was presented a while back, but it won't be discussed until after the witnesses, at the end of the meeting, as per our procedure. It's a notice of motion. He's put it in his summation of questions.

You have about another two minutes, Mr. Allison.

Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

Thanks to all of you for coming and for your extremely articulate presentation of the realities in Vladimir Putin's Russia today.

Could I ask you to give a brief example of the effectiveness of the American sanctions under the Magnitsky Act on those individuals who have been listed and prohibited?

[William Browder]

Yes. There are currently 39 people on the U.S. Magnitsky list. Their names have been publicly listed on the U.S. Treasury OFAC registry. Their visas have been cancelled and their assets have been frozen.

Most importantly, as of the moment your name goes onto the U.S. Treasury sanctions list, there's no bank in the world that wants to violate U.S. sanctions. They are able to close their accounts for any person on that list. I'm not just saying that about U.S. banks: it's any bank. No bank wants to be in violation of U.S. sanctions.

If you're on that list, you can no longer open a bank account and you can no longer operate a credit card. No international company will do business with you. Effectively, you become a financial pariah in the world. Also, even though this is just about U.S. travel bans, many other countries look at that list and deny visas on the basis of that list, so all of a sudden, your travel opportunities become limited.

Most significantly, we all know, and they all know in Russia, that eventually the Putin regime will fall. The current plan of all the bad guys in Russia is that when the regime falls, they will flee to the west and enjoy their ill-gotten gains in the west. But if you're on that list on a public registry, you can't flee anywhere, because when you flee somewhere and ask for a long-term visa or for asylum and the asylum officer types your name into the computer, he's going to say, “Wait a second. You're not welcome here, and in fact, we're going to send you back to Russia.”

There's nothing so existentially terrifying for a bad guy as not having an escape plan, which is what this does.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Very briefly, to those in Canada who would say that Canadian sanctions are not needed given the effectiveness of the U.S. prohibitions and sanctions, how would you answer?

[William Browder]

Well, at the moment, we just have U.S. sanctions. Ultimately, if these people want to come to Canada, they can. If they want to go to Europe, they can. The beauty of doing this in Canada is that if you look at what's going on in Europe, some European countries will say they don't want to follow America for various what I call “anti-American” reasons. The great thing is that there's anti-Americanism in the world, but I've never heard of anti-Canadianism.

Canada actually is in a very useful spot here. Russia can't cut off the gas to Canada. The type of leverage they have over the Europeans they don't have over you. You can do this in a position of moral leadership. It also negates the whole concept that this is an American initiative, an American anti-Russian initiative. No, this is an anti-torture initiative, which Canada as a leader should get involved in. I think it does help close the loopholes, wherever they may exist, so that first we have America, then we have Canada, and eventually we get Europe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

I'll just give everybody a sense of the discussion the committee will have at some point on whether this is a notice of motion or whether it's a motion that can be discussed here today. Until I get a clear picture from our justice folks, we'll consider it a notice of motion that will be presented to the committee at a later date. As you know, motions require 48 hours' notice.

I just want to throw that in for now, and we'll have a discussion about that later.

I may change my mind, Mr. Allison.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

I'll save my comments for later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Go ahead, Peter.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I'd like to thank you all for being here and for sharing with us what is really a story of bravery, of very important advocacy work.

Madam Nemtsova, I'm very sorry for your family's loss. These are difficult issues to deal with as parliamentarians, but that's our job. We're very blessed to have you here today.

Mr. Kara-Murza, I would underline that: a 5% chance. You made a very articulate presentation.

Mr. Browder, the story is fascinating. I followed it in the press and I also read a bit of the book. You're a tireless champion for human rights.

The work that all of you are doing in Mr. Magnitsky's name is critical, so critical, I think, that I want to put this question to you just as a way to get some ideas. What about generalizing what you're calling for here, having it as a general principle, as part of a broader sanctions regime that would look at travel bans, that would deal with visas, with all of the things you're calling for, but applying it generally and not to one specific state? Mr. Magnitsky's name could of course be used.

What do you think of that? It could maximize the good work that can be done here. I wonder if you think there's merit in this kind of an approach.

That's for anyone.

[William Browder]

Let me address that, because I've been through this in America.

The American Magnitsky Act had originally started as just an act for Sergei Magnitsky. Then various people—Boris Nemtsov, Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kara-Murza, and various others—came forward and said that we had hit the Achilles heel of the Putin regime, so let's do it more broadly than just one case. My Senate sponsors said of course that made total sense, and broadened it to include all gross human rights abusers in Russia.

At that point, the White House didn't want to upset Russia. They said we should make it a global piece of legislation. My Senate co-sponsors said of course they would, so it became a global Magnitsky Act. It was only at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute—there were a lot of arguments from supporters of some countries that didn't want this—that it became Russian again, and it became a Russian Magnitsky Act. Everybody grudgingly accepted that as opposed to the morally perfect idea of sanctioning bad guys everywhere.

There's currently a global Magnitsky Act. The Russian act passed 92 to 4 in the Senate, 89% of the House of Representatives, and became law on December 14, 2012, with the idea that we were going to then try to do a global Magnitsky act. A global Magnitsky Act was then launched in the Senate and House of Representatives. It passed unanimously in the Senate, but it is still waiting for a vote in the House of Representatives. I think it would be my wish, and the wish of the Magnitsky family and many other victims around the world, to have a piece of legislation in America that works that way.

I don't see why that shouldn't be done here. However, there are practical considerations. I know who's on the side of right and on the side of wrong as far as Russia is concerned, but I don't know when it comes to other countries. The moment you open it up into a global debate, you end up with a lot of uncertain allies and enemies.

I can't tell you what the right political strategy is. We want to make sure we get a Russian Magnitsky Act. If it can be global, that's a huge bonus, but I would hate to make perfect the enemy of good. I'd rather get something done that's not perfect than nothing done that is perfect.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I appreciate that. From my perspective, the story of what Mr. Magnitsky went through in his quest for justice and truth is so heart-wrenching that I raise generalizing the principle as a way of....

You know, March 23 is the pertinent date here when it comes to the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA. I'm only saying this for the record. I know that you know these facts very well. For me, it's simply about asking if we can have a principle enshrined in there, in the review, where we look at this and say perhaps there's a lot to be said about a general policy here, so that, as I said before, the good work that all of you have done can be maximized.

But I take your point on that. There's a review coming. As part of that, certain ideas need to be advanced.

[William Browder]

You wouldn't get any objection from me if you did effectively a global Magnitsky Act here in Canada. I think that would be ideal. It's not for me or any of my colleagues to advise you on how to conduct things.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I only raised it to say that, as the review proceeds, this is one of the things that I think merits strong consideration.

Those are comments. Thank you so much.

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

Can I add a couple of words on this?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Of course.

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

On your main question, I would also agree in principle. I mean, there can be no objection to making it global, because human rights, by their very nature, are universal and apply to everyone. In principle, then, I think that would be a very honourable thing to do.

We had this discussion about five years ago, when there was a move from the initial Magnitsky bill in the U.S. Congress, which focused just on Sergei's case, to the second bill, which was then adopted and became the Magnitsky Act. It had this widening clause, section 4(b) in the American law, which included other cases of gross human rights abuse.

This, I think, is an extremely important thing to do. It's important not only to bring to responsibility those who Sergei uncovered as having stolen the money from Russian taxpayers—those who then arrested, tortured, and killed him—but to also have this enshrined as a principle for all those who in the future would consider torturing, murdering, abusing human rights, violating Russia's international obligations on human rights, and engaging in corruption, and to have the principle that they will be held responsible. Even if we cannot do it, for now, in our country, because we don't have rule of law and we don't have democratic institutions, we can do this on the international level. It's important to have that open-ended clause that whoever does engage in this sort of behaviour will have to answer and will have to be held responsible for this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Okay, we'll go to Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, thank you for being with us. I do not see how we could have gained a deeper understanding of this situation than we have with you here.

I think I properly understood, from your presentation, the direct consequences of such a measure for the Putin administration. However, there is one aspect that you have not addressed. Does this measure have consequences for the Russian people's standard of living? If so, what are they?

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

The notion of targeted individual sanctions under the Magnitsky Act is really without precedent in world history. These are not sanctions against a country, against a people, or even against a government. These are sanctions against individuals who are personally guilty and responsible for human rights abuses.

Incidentally, I will say that all the Kremlin's efforts to present the Magnitsky Act as a measure imposing sanctions against Russia have not been successful, despite all the bureaucrats' and the regime's propaganda and efforts. In December 2012, just after the Magnitsky Act was passed in the United States, a poll was conducted by the Levada Center, an independent sociological research group in Russia. In general, the results are credible. People were asked whether they agreed with the principle that those who engage in corruption and who commit human rights abuses cannot travel to Western countries or use their banking systems. The survey found that 44% of Russians agreed with this principle and that only 21% did not; the rest did not respond.

Even with all the propaganda and efforts made to present the Magnitsky Act as a measure imposing sanctions against Russia, the Kremlin has not been successful. Russian citizens understand that these are sanctions against those who abuse human rights and engage in corruption with their money. The really brilliant idea behind these sanctions is that they punish those who should be held accountable for their own actions, not those who are not guilty.

I apologize for the quality of my French.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

It is very good, don't worry.

I understand then that there is no direct impact on the Russian people, and even that they tend to approve of these sanctions.

I confess that I rather like the idea of extending this procedure, since we are talking about linking this act to basic human rights. I think the act could apply everywhere.

Is there any other support that you would like Canada to provide in the anti-corruption fight in Russia?

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

The most important thing is that Canada should not allow corrupt people and human rights abusers to use its financial system, coming to visit, buy homes in the country, and send their children to Canadian schools. That is really important.

Most of the reasons why Russian society is cynical about the West are artificial. They are the result of propaganda on Russian television against the West and against enemies. However, one reason for this cynicism is quite real. Many western leaders speak of human rights, democracy, the importance of legislation, and the fight against corruption, but in reality, they let corrupt people use their financial system, travel in their country, come on vacation, and buy houses. That seems hypocritical.

I think the most important thing is that western and democratic countries, which are based on principles of law, democracy, and justice, do not open up to people who engage in corruption, steal, and abuse basic human rights. This is really the main thing to do.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much.

Your testimony is as persuasive as your own story.

I have no other questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Borys, you're next.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Kara-Murza, you have my heartfelt gratitude. I don't know how to put it more poignantly; it's my heartfelt gratitude that you're here today as a living witness. Litvinenko, radioactive polonium; Yushchenko, dioxin; and Kara-Murza, we don't know; heavy metals, most likely. The Kremlin clearly has a track record of poisoning political opponents, both Russian and foreign.

Mr. Browder and you pointed out the difference between the Magnitsky sanctions and the typical sanctions, which are sectoral or economic. These target the jailers, the torturers, the political assassins, and the show-trial prosecutors and judges.

Clearly, with poisonings, there are highly professional scientific experts involved in carrying out these types of political assassinations. Are you aware of what agencies within Russia are involved in the development of these methods of assassination by poison? Should not the scientists and technicians involved also be covered by this Magnitsky Act?