Foreign Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2026

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

Thank you. The question was super interesting, Mr. Chair, and I would like Mr. Kara‑Murza to be able to answer it.

By the way, thank you to all the witnesses. We do have some exceptional people testifying today. I want to thank them for being with us for this important discussion.

So, Mr. Kara‑Murza, I would like you to answer the question Mr. Oliphant just asked you. I think you had an answer ready.

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

Okay, thank you very much.

I don't know which language I should use to answer.

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

You can answer in whichever language you prefer here. In French or in English, as you wish.

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

I'll try to be brief in answering the previous question so that Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe gets a chance to ask his own question too.

On Alexei Navalny's case specifically, I'm sure many members of this committee have seen the recent large exposé published in The Wall Street Journal, an article that detailed the way in which the negotiations for our exchange began. They began in autumn 2023, while Alexei Navalny was still alive.

The reason they were delayed so much—it happened only in August 2024—was that a former German foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, who is the current president of the UN General Assembly, was blocking the decision by the German government to release FSB hit man Vadim Krasikov. He was in prison in Germany, and he was part of the exchange from the other side. She was blocking it as a matter of principle. It was her position that, “We can't let a murderer go.” However, while she was blocking it, Alexei Navalny was himself murdered in a Russian prison; that was in February 2024. After that, former German chancellor Olaf Scholz overruled her and said, “We're not listening to you anymore. This exchange is going ahead because, otherwise, they're going to kill all of them.” My personal view is that, in the future biographies of Miss Annalena Baerbock, this is what she'll most be remembered for. That was specific to the case of Mr. Navalny.

As for the general point that Mr. Oliphant made, I can speak not just as a former political prisoner myself but as a historian who spent a long time researching and studying the Soviet dissident movement and political imprisonment in the Soviet Union. I had the honour of knowing many of these people. I made films and wrote articles about them. The one thing that never works, specifically when it comes to political prisoners—since we're talking about this issue here—is “so-called quiet diplomacy”. When somebody tells you, “Oh, we're going to raise it privately. We're going to make sure we'll discuss it with them in a polite way”, that's the best way of knowing they're not going to do anything about it. The only defence, the only hope, the only lifeline for a political prisoner who is sitting in a prison cell in Siberia, in Xinjiang, in Venezuela or wherever it may be, is publicity, advocacy and public attention. I am, in a very literal sense, living proof that this is the case.

Thank you so much, Mr. Duceppe.

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

Thank you for your answer, Mr. Kara‑Murza.

Mr. Kara‑Murza, I would like to ask you another question, since we're lucky to have you as a witness today.

Bill C‑219 serves a fundamental purpose. There are currently thousands of political prisoners around the world. In Russia alone, there are thousands.

We also want to understand what you can tell us about how vulnerable a political prisoner is when in prison. Where can he find hope that one day he will be released? What happens when you're in a cell and don't necessarily have contact with the outside or any human contact at all? How do people manage? Why is Bill C‑219 so important for the life of a political prisoner?

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

At the beginning of this conversation, I referenced our mutual friend Irwin Cotler, who said that the worst nightmare for a political prisoner is being forgotten. Before I was imprisoned myself, while I was advocating for other Russian political prisoners, I used that phrase often, but honestly I didn't really understand it until I experienced it myself.

When a totalitarian regime or a dictatorship arrests and imprisons a political opponent, the goal is not just to punish that person and put them in jail. The goal is also to demoralize the person, isolate them, make them believe that everyone has forgotten them, that what happened doesn't matter and that they are there for nothing. In fact, that's what the Putin regime is trying to do with all the people who are in prison.

I can't tell you how important it was for me to know, through the letters I received and from what my lawyers said when they visited me, that it was not true, in fact, and that the world had not forgotten. It's important to know that the free world, the democratic world, is expressing solidarity with all those people in Russia who are imprisoned by Putin's dictatorship for speaking out against the regime or the war. When I talked about the exchange that took place in August 2024, the most powerful message for me from western countries, democratic countries, was to include not only their own citizens in that exchange, even here at home, but also Russian political prisoners.

I don't have enough words in any language I know to express how important it is not only for the democratic world to support political prisoners in totalitarian countries, but to do so publicly. Speaking publicly is the most important defence for someone who is imprisoned for years and years by a totalitarian regime without ever having committed a crime, just because of their political views or religious values.

As I said a few minutes ago, of all the provisions of Bill C‑219, the most important and most personal for me is precisely that one. It's the requirement for public reports—and I want to emphasize the word “public”—as regards political prisoners in totalitarian regimes, so that it's impossible for those dictatorships to make political prisoners believe that the world doesn't know what's going on and that the world has forgotten them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you.

James Bezan, you have five minutes.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I want to direct my first question to Marcus Kolga.

Mr. Kolga, we were just hearing Vladimir Kara-Murza's description of how important it is that we have public advocacy for prisoners of conscience. Vladimir is living proof of that. Another one is Michael Kovrig. I know he's written about it. I've talked to him about it. His comment was that sunlight is by far the best disinfectant, and it's by far the one that brought him his freedom as well. Can you comment on that?

[Marcus Kolga]

Thank you for the question.

Vladimir has clearly articulated the need to constantly bring up these cases. I think the same happened in the case of the two Michaels. Their freedom was thanks to the fact that there were members of Parliament who regularly made statements on their behalf. Opinion pieces and articles appeared regularly, so their cases weren't forgotten.

There's another important aspect to all of this. That sort of attention puts pressure on the government as well. It doesn't allow the government to simply ignore these cases. It puts pressure on them so that they keep bringing these cases up and so that they do negotiate for their eventual release. That's exactly what happened with the two Michaels.

I would also add that MP Bezan and many others, such as now-retired MP McKay, regularly brought up Vladimir's case in statements and in various motions. I think that at least two or three motions were passed during his incarceration. These are important in terms of maintaining the public eye and media attention on these cases. This is very important in terms of the process of having them freed and, ultimately, defending their rights.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Kolga, you're one of the people I consulted when I was drafting this legislation, especially on the definitions, including transnational repression and prisoners of conscience. Do you feel that the thresholds in the definition of transnational repression are too high or too low?

[Marcus Kolga]

I'm always for lowering thresholds in terms of the application of sanctions. If there is a way to lower that threshold, I fully support it.

What's important in Bill C-219 is that there is a definition of transnational repression at all. Currently, in our legislation, we don't have a clear definition of transnational repression. This would be the first of its kind, so having that included in Bill C-219 is fundamentally important.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

One of the concerns that have been raised by government officials is the definition of “prisoners of conscience” and maybe changing the term to “human rights defenders”. In the minds of all of the witnesses, is prisoner of conscience the right terminology? I want to get feedback on that.

Sir Browder, you could go first.

[Sir William Browder]

I've worked on a number of different cases of people who have become prisoners of conscience, and not all of them are human rights defenders.

Let's start with Sergei Magnitsky, for example. Sergei Magnitsky was a tax lawyer who uncovered a massive government tax scam and exposed it. They wanted him to retract his testimony against corrupt officers. They wanted him to bear false witness against me and others. He wasn't a human rights lawyer. He wasn't an activist. He wasn't even a politician. He was a prisoner of conscience because he wanted to do the right thing. He was killed for that. He wouldn't be captured under this government's definition.

You can look at Jimmy Lai. He is a newspaper publisher who just wanted to publish his newspaper and tell the truth. He wanted to free Hong Kong. He wasn't a human rights defender, but he's now imprisoned and he's a prisoner of conscience.

I want to react, if I could, for two seconds to the previous comment that was made about how it could be a bad thing to raise these issues and call someone a prisoner of conscience. I can tell you that in 100% of the cases, it's a good thing for governments to name and shame, to label authoritarian regimes as acting out badly and arresting people who shouldn't be arrested, and to name prisoners of conscience. It's never a bad thing. It's always a bad thing to keep these things quiet and to do quiet diplomacy. It's a typical foreign ministry thing to say, “Let's just keep this really quiet.” Nobody who's a victim of this wants that to happen, and keeping it quiet never helps them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you.

Next, we go to Anita Vandenbeld. You have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Vladimir Kara-Murza, I have to say how incredibly happy we are to see you here, well and free. I have to give kudos to your wife, who has testified at this committee, and others. There was a tremendous amount of work across the parties, particularly when we worked across party lines to ensure that you got your honorary citizenship. It is inspiring to see you here today and know those efforts made a difference.

It also encourages us to keep going on cases such as Jimmy Lai's and others. We know that, even if it feels as though nothing is happening, our activism as parliamentarians makes a difference.

You mentioned in your opening remarks that you were aware that ambassadors had spoken on your behalf, that you were not forgotten and that your name was being mentioned. We think about the impact that has on the regimes that are holding prisoners of conscience. What impact does that have on the prisoner?

What impact does knowing you're not forgotten have on your own morale and the will to keep going?

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

Thank you so much, Ms. Vandenbeld, for your kind words, first of all, and for all the amazing efforts and leadership that all of you, across parties, engaged in in the two and a half years I was in captivity.

To answer your question, shortly after I was—

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Since people are watching us, I would like to mention that the camera has been on Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe for a while now.

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

That's what I was trying to say.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

We still like you, but we would like to see the witness as well.

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

Thank you, that's kind.

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

To answer your question, shortly after I was transferred to Omsk, after my 25-year sentence came in, the prison's security operations officer came into my cell. Of course, all the correspondence a prisoner gets has to be censored by the prison administration. A lot of these letters do not go through. A lot of them do get through, but they're still read by these guys in the prison office. He came in and asked, “What is honorary Canadian citizenship?” That's how I found out I'd received it. It was because somebody wrote it to me in prison and the officers read it.

I do not have enough words to express how much that moral support matters, because when an authoritarian regime imprisons a political opponent, the goal is not just to punish that person and imprison them but also to isolate, demoralize and make them feel that everybody has forgotten them, that nobody cares and that this was all for nothing—these sacrifices were for nothing.

Every time another resolution is passed, another hearing is held and another name is mentioned in a parliamentary speech, it could be literally life-saving for the prisoner sitting in those conditions, especially if they're in solitary confinement, which is how I was imprisoned. You sit in this tiny, three-metre by four-metre cell, day after day, week after week and month after month. You have nowhere to go; you have nothing to do, and you have no one to speak to, which is the worst thing of all.

As you know, according to the United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners, solitary confinement of more than 15 days is considered to be a form of torture. I was in solitary for a straight year, with no pause, in Omsk. This was how Alexei Navalny was held. This was how Soviet prisoners of conscience were held back in Communist times. That is intended both to torture and to isolate. Breaking this isolation and letting those prisoners know they're not alone and they're not forgotten.... Frankly speaking, nothing can be more important than that.

Every time I speak to a big, international audience and somebody stands up and asks, “What can I do to help political prisoners? I'm not a parliamentarian; I'm not a journalist, and I'm not a government official. What can I do?” I always say to please take a few minutes in the day to write to political prisoners. There are human rights groups that facilitate this and have these special websites where it's really easy to go and select a political prisoner and send him or her a letter. Only somebody who has been in this situation personally can appreciate how much hope, how much light and how much warmth there will be in the piece of paper the prison guard hands you through the feeding slot in your cell door.

This public attention is incredibly important, and not only morally or symbolically: Very often, it can mean better prison conditions. It can mean less or no torture by the prison officials, because, of course, it's more difficult—going back to this discussion about public versus non-public—to torture somebody and create impossible conditions if people are talking about that person, the light is switched on and the spotlight is on them.

I will give one example from a few months ago. Alexei Gorinov is a Moscow municipal councilman who is serving a seven-year prison sentence for calling for a minute of silence at a district council meeting in Moscow in memory of the Ukrainian kids killed by Russian bombs. He got seven years in prison for that. He's sitting in solitary confinement in Siberia as I speak. He was held in this horrendous cell with no running water and no mattress in the brutal cold. Dmitry Muratov, the editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta, a prominent, independent Russian news publication and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, wrote a public appeal to the International Committee of the Red Cross on his behalf. That appeal was published everywhere. The Red Cross responded. The next day, Alexei was transferred to a better cell with a mattress, running water and better conditions.

It may seem a small thing, but if this is your life and this is how you exist every single day, it is literally life-changing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you.

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

To go back to the exchanges, nobody would include prisoners in international exchanges if these prisoners were not known. The only way these exchanges, such as the one that freed me and the one that freed hundreds of political prisoners from Belarus last year, for example.... As you know, this was led by the current American government, for all the many questions about it. It did this. Hundreds of political prisoners from Belarus have been released as a result of the actions of the current U.S. administration. The only reason this happened is that people like Maria Kolesnikova, Sergei Tikhanovsky and Ales Bialiatski were known, talked about and the subject of international attention.

Please don't let any cynic ever tell you that this—all of these hearings and all of these resolutions—is unimportant. Why do you talk about these things? They save human lives, and I'm living proof of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you.

We'll go next to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for two and a half minutes.

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

For months now, many of us have been calling on Canada to grant honorary citizenship to Jimmy Lai, who is currently in an appalling situation in the jails of Hong Kong.

The Chinese foreign minister is in Canada today. He's just arrived. Isn't this an opportunity to shine a more significant spotlight on Mr. Lai's case?

I would like you to tell me about Mr. Lai's case, Mr. Kara‑Murza, because you are familiar with it. I would like you to tell us how much it would change Mr. Lai's life if Canada did that. That is in fact what we've been asking the government for months now.