Foreign Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2026

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

I think this is a very good day to be talking about this. That's right, the Chinese minister is here in Ottawa this week.

I know Sebastien Lai, Jimmy Lai's son. I know his daughter, Claire. I actually saw her last week at the Freedom House ceremony, where Jimmy Lai was honoured with the Freedom Award. She was there to receive the award. This story breaks my heart, as do many other stories of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience around the world.

Jimmy Lai's only crime, if I can put it that way, was publishing honest information about what's happening in Communist China. As you know, he was the head of Apple Daily, Hong Kong's leading pro-democracy newspaper. Because of that, the Chinese communist regime gave him a prison sentence that is really a life sentence, given his health and age. In my opinion, there is only one thing that can save Jimmy Lai's life. This is important. We're not just talking about politically motivated illegal imprisonment, which is already unacceptable in itself. In this case, it's a matter of saving his life. In my opinion, the only thing that can save Jimmy Lai's life right now is for western governments to take a major and very public stand. That includes not only Canada, especially since the minister is here right now, but also the United States. Trump said he was going to talk about Jimmy Lai's case when he was in Beijing. I don't know if he did or not. We know that Jimmy Lai is still in prison.

It is very important that this issue be addressed, especially by G7 countries, including Canada. When there are formal negotiations, for example, between Canada and China, as is the case today, leaders must not talk only about investments, business, money and so on. They have to actually talk about human lives. In my opinion, nothing is more important than that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you.

We'll go next to MP Michael Chong. You have five minutes.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to speak to the part of the bill that deals with removing authoritarian state-controlled broadcasters from the public broadcasting airwaves in Canada. There is a problem with that section of the bill. It wasn't properly drafted. Amendments are coming, so I don't want to speak to the technical problems of that part of the bill. Rather, what I would like to hear from witnesses, if they have an opinion, is....

First, Russia Today was pulled from the airwaves here in Canada in 2022. It was pulled from the airwaves of many European democracies as well. CGTN remains on the airwaves here in Canada, but it has been removed from the public airwaves of a lot of other democracies.

Could any of you tell this committee which authoritarian state-controlled broadcasters have been removed from licensed broadcast airwaves in other democracies, whether it's the Iranian state-controlled broadcaster, the Russian one or the PRC one? Marcus Kolga, I think, mentioned something in his testimony, so I know he has an opinion on it. Maybe we'll start with him.

[Marcus Kolga]

Sure. I'll try to be brief. Thank you for the question.

In Europe, RT and all Russian state media have indeed been pulled from most airwaves. In many parts of Europe, RT is also inaccessible online. If you go to RT's website, you are blocked from seeing information on that platform. RT's feeds on platforms like YouTube are also blocked. I think this is extremely helpful because, nowadays, you don't need a cable or satellite connection to access that media.

The U.K. has banned CGTN and CCTV for airing confessions on their broadcasts. This was done quite some time ago. That same question came up at the CRTC in terms of licensing CGTN and CCTV a number of years ago, but I don't think it went anywhere. CGTN and CCTV are equally dangerous to RT. These platforms are being used to weaponize information against the western world, including for Canadians in the English-speaking and Chinese-language media information spaces. Canada is a bit of an outlier in terms of allowing those Chinese state media platforms to remain on Canadian broadcast systems.

I'll also add one other point about RT.

A situation has come up whereby there appears to be some evasion around the removal of those channels from our broadcast systems. There are two companies—one is eTVnet and another is based in Germany—selling devices in the Canadian marketplace. They cost around $15 or $20 apiece. They're somewhat like Amazon fire sticks. The user can purchase this device, put it on the back of their television and get the full array of Russian state media on that television. By some estimates, up to 40% to 50% of Russian diaspora members use these devices to get around that broadcast ban.

Preventing broadcasters like CCTV and CGTN from broadcasting is one thing, but we also need to look at this issue more broadly in terms of the platforms being used to broadcast information via the Internet.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

To clarify, you mentioned that RT has been largely removed from the airwaves in Europe and the U.K. I know CGTN and CCTV have been removed from the airwaves in the U.K., but what about the European Union?

[Marcus Kolga]

It's a good question. I'm not sure if there's a complete ban on their broadcasting in Europe. I don't know the details on exactly which countries have removed those state broadcasters from their airwaves. This is something I can look into and get back to the committee on.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Maybe the other witnesses can....

Am I out of time?

Okay. Thank you. I'll take the next round to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Before I turn to MP Sari, I know Sir Browder and Mr. Kolga have to leave.

I know you had only one hour, so I want to—

[Sir William Browder]

I can stay on for a few more questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

You can continue on. Okay. On behalf of the committee, thank you both for allowing us to continue with a few more questions.

I'll turn to MP Sari.

You have five minutes.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for being with us. At the risk of repeating what my colleagues have already said, we are very pleased and honoured we are to have them with us today.

I'll get right to it.

There is something intriguing in what you and my colleagues are saying: Despite the adoption of laws like the Sergei Magnitsky Law, which we are talking about a lot today, the results we are seeing on the ground in a number of western countries are sometimes problematic.

How do you assess the results so far?

I would like short answers, because I will then have questions for other people.

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

To my mind, the best way to assess them is by the reactions from the other side, the reactions of those targeted by laws like the Sergei Magnitsky Law, in this case Vladimir Putin's regime in the Kremlin.

I myself have been poisoned twice by Putin's FSB, Russia's federal security service, precisely because of my work on the Sergei Magnitsky law. The 25-year jail sentence I received in April was handed down by Sergei Podoprigorov, the same judge who sent Sergei Magnitsky to jail. That was a very clear message from the Kremlin.

There are few things those people hate more than such targeted sanctions. For years and years, those people wanted to steal money from us in Russia but spend it here in the west. The Sergei Magnitsky law puts an end to that hypocrisy.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

That's the answer I wanted to hear, and you said it well.

Thank you once again for your testimony, because it influences our thinking and very understanding of Bill C‑219, which is before us now.

I would like to take you a step further. How can you explain the gap between our intent behind a law and the implementation issues that sometimes arise in practice?

I could turn to the two experts, and I invite Ms. McInnes to answer the question as well.

More specifically, which of the mechanisms proposed in Bill C‑219 do you think would be the most important to ensure the bill is implemented or to do away with this culture of hesitation?

[Kate McInnes]

Thank you very much for the question.

I believe that, in an earlier session, Mr. Bezan noted that this is all about closing loopholes.

I can give you an example from my own practice. I hope you can appreciate that I'm going to speak in broad brush strokes, because it's a live issue.

Currently, I'm working to address a slew of assassinations that a state committed historically and across a number of different countries. We found that the individual who orchestrated this on the ground was a community leader and a loyalist to that regime, but they had absolutely no hard and fast connection to it.

My concern is that, under the current drafting of the bill, an individual like this—who is really a heavy hitter— would fall through the gaps. That's very much a loophole in the legislation as currently drafted.

Based on our amendments, he would be caught, because the question is whether he knowingly facilitated transnational repression, for instance. The answer in this case would certainly be yes.

That's one example of how creating tight, well-drafted legislation is very important to capturing the chain of command of these operations, because it's extensive. As I mentioned, authoritarian states are at pains to make themselves as elusive as possible and make it difficult to connect these things back to the head honchos in China, Iran, Russia or wherever.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I don't know if the other two witnesses can add anything.

What could also help us is that we live under the rule of law. What can guide us so that we always strike that balance between maintaining the rule of law and the implementation of the measures proposed in Bill C‑219?

[Sir William Browder]

Can I say something?

I want to say that because I'm one of the principal advocates of the Magnitsky act, I get approached by many people who have been victimized by different regimes in different countries. They want to use the Magnitsky act to impose sanctions on the people who have been there, the people who have perpetrated these crimes. This is not true just in Canada; it is true all over the world.

I tell them that they should apply to the foreign ministry of Canada using your Magnitsky act, submit their evidence, find members of Parliament who can support their cases and bring those cases up in Parliament, along with the application to the foreign ministry, with the hope to get those people sanctioned.

I would say that in almost all cases, they would submit their recommendations. There may even have been media attention to it. The government would then do absolutely nothing. I would say that in the vast majority of cases, the government would do absolutely nothing.

We end up in this situation. The members of Parliament who brought it up can get no answer from the government about why they did nothing, whether they should or should not have and what their reasoning was. That's one of the reasons this provision basically asking the government to be accountable to Parliament is such an important thing.

I can't imagine that anyone sitting in this room today would object to that. There's no reason anyone should object in this Parliament to having the government more accountable to parliamentarians. That—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you.

Unfortunately, we're way over the time.

We'll go next to MP Chong. You have five minutes.

[A voice]

You said....

[An hon. member]

I'm sorry, Mr.... No, that's not true.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

No, we're starting a new round with Michael. I'll then get to you.

Michael Chong, go ahead, for five minutes.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I want to continue with the question and give the other witnesses an opportunity to respond about authoritarian state-controlled broadcasters like CGTN, CCTV, the Iranian state-controlled broadcaster and the Russian ones.

What is the status of those state-controlled broadcasters on public airwaves—not over the Internet, but on public airwaves, broadcast airwaves—in other democracies? Could you tell us what you know about that, if anything?

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

Thank you so much for the question.

I can speak to the Russian state propaganda outlets. I don't want to call them media, because they aren't.

As Marcus said a few minutes ago, in the vast majority of democratic countries both in Europe and North America, these Kremlin propaganda outlets were taken off the air shortly after the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. In my view, that was way too late, because for years and years, these propaganda mouthpieces poisoned the minds of a lot of people in the free world, but I guess it's better late than never.

I want to make a point that these dictatorships and these propagandists for dictatorships very much like to engage in these hypocritical “arguments” about how this is against democracy and against freedom of speech: “Why are you denying us?” The same people who have destroyed any basic tenets of democracy in their own country, Russia, are trying to hide behind these tenets when they want to continue having access to audiences in the free world.

I want to remind members of this committee that it is established international case law that propagandists act as accomplices to crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, that are being committed by the actual dictatorships. As members of this committee will know, Nazi propagandists were tried and sentenced at Nuremberg. As members of this committee also know, the leadership of the so-called radio Mille Collines was tried and sentenced for the Rwanda genocide by the international tribunal.

These people probably didn't kill anybody with their own hands, but you can kill with words as well. You can create an atmosphere in which thousands and thousands of people are being killed. I think it is way overdue, but absolutely right, that democratic countries like Canada shield themselves from the poisonous propaganda spewed by these totalitarian regimes, be they in Moscow, in Beijing, in Tehran or wherever else.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Madame McInnes, do you have any view on this?

[Kate McInnes]

I have no view on it. I have nothing to add.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to ask a question about clauses 6 and 15 of the bill, which would replace the discretionary framework for forfeiture and disposal of property seized or restrained under the two current acts with fixed timelines requiring the minister to apply for forfeiture within 12 months and to dispose of the forfeited property within 30 days. This is a big shift from a discretionary approach to a time-bounded mandatory approach.

I'm wondering, Sir Browder, if you or any of the other witnesses have any views on this part of the bill.