Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Dec. 11th, 2012

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You referred to the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 that has just been passed by Congress. That will require the Secretary of State to impose visa bans and asset seizures on those implicated in the Magnitsky torture, death, detention, corporate tax fraud, and the like.

My question is, is it likely to have any effect on bringing the perpetrators in Russia to justice? What impact might it have in Russia itself?

[William Browder]

There's one thing you missed when you were summarizing the act in America, which is that it applies to all the people who did that to Sergei, plus all other gross human rights abusers.

I don't believe that in the current regime the Russian government will ever create a proper investigation to bring to justice the people who killed Sergei Magnitsky. However, if you create a consequence for this and other crimes, then people in the future may decide not to commit those crimes because there's a consequence. Right now, if you're an immoral person, where you get a full benefit for committing a crime and there's no cost to committing the crime, then you'll commit a crime. If all of a sudden there's a chance that your assets will be frozen and you can't travel, you might think twice about committing a crime.

My hope, as a campaigner for justice, but also for Sergei's legacy, is that the law with his name on it will save lives in the future, because people will be afraid to do these types of things.

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

I'd like to absolutely concur with what Mr. Browder said. For us, that's the major point of expanding the provisions of the bill to include other gross human rights violations: so that it doesn't just end the impunity for those criminals involved in this case but also serves as a potential deterrent to those who, when faced with the choice of carrying out a criminal order but then thinking that doing so may mean losing access to their western bank account, may think twice. That's a very important point as well.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

What steps do you think we can take here in Canada to support the fight against corruption in the rule of law in Russia?

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

This is number one, two, and three—those targeted personal sanctions.

Once again, these are not sanctions against Russia, as the Kremlin propaganda tries to trumpet. They fail in that, of course; as we see from opinion polls, more Russians support this than don't. But this is really it.

It's for the Russian opposition, obviously, and for the Russian society to achieve political change in Russia. But this is the greatest possible help: to strike directly at the abusers, at the corrupt officials, the crooks; to close to them access to their ill-gotten money, which they have plundered from the Russian people, from Russian taxpayers, and which they keep here—“here” meaning in western nations—and have invested in western assets and in sending their kids to receive education here. It's closing those avenues to them.

They may not, for now, be facing any kind of accountability or responsibility or punishment in Russia. They will one day; there's no doubt about it. They may not be facing it now, but there's no reason that they should enjoy the privilege of having access to the nations of North America and western Europe.

The best way to help the Russia people in their struggle for the rule of law and in a struggle for democracy is to tell those abusers and thieves that they are not welcome here and are not welcome anywhere in the western world.

[William Browder]

Let me just add one point.

I've been working to try to get justice for the last three years. The first thing that was always offered up, when I visited government officials or parliamentarians in the early stages of this campaign, was “We're going to bring this case up with the Russians”. What we've learned very quickly is that the old technology of bringing up cases with the Russians has no impact whatsoever. Words basically don't do anything. They're not interested in words; they're interested in consequences.

What is the range of options, in terms of creating consequences? There are not that many options. We don't have jurisdiction over the crimes they commit in those countries. But the one thing that we have jurisdiction over in the west, which costs us nothing, is the ability to let these people into our countries and to let them use our financial sector. This is something we have the ability to do. It's something that they cherish, that they covet, and it's something that for no cost to us we can cut off.

That's the one thing and the only thing that we can do. We've tried every other option.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chairman—

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

You have one more minute.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have to leave, because I have an S.O. 31 that I must do.

I had a resolution circulated, which basically reaffirms the resolution that we once passed, and then adds the following elements to it—

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I'll have the clerk circulate it while you're chatting.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes.

After reaffirming the resolution that we passed in its “whereases”, it basically then says—these are the operative parts—

Be it resolved that:

The Subcommittee condemns the posthumous trial of Sergei Magnitsky, first such trial in Russian History;

The Subcommittee deplores efforts to tamper with evidence and threaten witnesses and the family of Sergei Magnitsky;

The Subcommittee take note of recent legislation passed in the US and EU in this matter and therefore

that we reaffirm our call of last time regarding what the Government of Canada can do to explore options in this regard.

I'm not reading out the whole thing, because it's all there set out before you, and we passed most of it at our previous meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Professor, we're meeting on Thursday. If we were to leave this until then, it might give the members time to review it and we could then have it discussed at that time.

Would that be reasonable, from your perspective?

Okay, let's do that.

All right. We'll set that aside and take a look at it at our Thursday meeting.

Mr. Schellenberger, you offered to divide your six minutes with your colleagues. Why don't we have you begin? Then we'll follow with Mr. Sweet and Ms. Grewal.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Let Mr. Sweet start. I think he has a very important question.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Schellenberger.

The other thing I just realized, too, when thinking about this question, is that I've seen a lot of instances where lawyers have defended people in human rights cases, but I would certainly want to be the lawyer who was lucky enough that my client would actually come to my defence afterwards, as in this case. So I commend Mr. Browder in that regard. It's very unique, and it is an example of your extraordinary character.

Mr. Browder, I wanted to ask you, who are the victims here? Is it Hermitage? Who were the clients who lost this money? After this money was pillaged, somebody obviously.... We've been talking about Sergei Magnitsky, and rightly so, but somebody obviously suffered a huge loss here in this fraud.

[William Browder]

This is the interesting part. We didn't. Neither Hermitage nor our clients suffered. There was no money stolen from us. The money that was stolen was exclusively and only the tax money that we paid to the Russian government, and it was stolen from the Russian people.

I'm not here fighting for money. I'm here because my lawyer was killed fighting for the money of his own country. This is the Russian people's money, and that's what makes this so unbelievable. The Russian government has absolutely refused to prosecute anyone who's stolen the money from their own country, and they're threatening other countries who want to sanction the officials who stole the money and then killed the lawyer who exposed it.

That's what makes this so unbelievably strange. It's not like they stole money from a foreigner and I'm fighting over money. They stole their own money.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Yes, it is strange and bizarre.

Thank you, Mr. Browder.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

There seems to be some sort of discrepancy over Mr. Magnitsky's employment. Most media stories refer to him as a lawyer, but he's also described as an accountant who worked at Firestone Duncan as an auditor.

What was his official job?

[William Browder]

Sergei Magnitsky was the lawyer. He represented me in court. The Russian government, I should say some Russian officials, are going around saying he wasn't a lawyer; therefore, we should have killed the guy.

He was my lawyer. He was in court. He was other people's lawyer in court. What they're referring to is that he wasn't a barrister. In Russia you have barristers and you have solicitors. He was a solicitor, not a barrister.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Schellenberger.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you.

I find the testimony here today to be just amazing. I'm new on this committee, and that's why I haven't asked too many questions. It has been a real learning curve for me, and to hear the testimony today is incredible.

I really have one question. In your view, how can Canada best support and strengthen Russia's civil society and the work of human rights defenders and independent journalists? How can we do that?

[William Browder]

The one way you can do it is by getting your government.... You have a different system in Canada than we have in America, where there is a separation of powers. We could actually get members of Congress to pass a law that the President more or less had to sign. Here, you have a government; you have a parliament, the majority of which then forms the government.

This is a non-partisan issue. This is not a left or a right or a middle issue, and in different countries I work with people from all different shades of the political spectrum. In Washington, they dropped all their arms and for a brief moment in bipartisanship they did the right thing here.

What I'm asking for here is for all of you to work together to get your government.... Governments don't like to pick fights with other countries, and the Russians are going to pick a fight over this, but this is important.

I should point out one last thing. I was making a speech last night in Toronto to a group of diasporas from central Europe, from Ukraine, from Russia, from Estonia, etc., and I met with the presidents of all those different diaspora groups, which represent four million Canadians. They are completely committed to this cause in Canada because they care about it. And they will be pushing you and your colleagues to support this and to get the government to support this, because it's more important to make sure that those four million Canadians feel the right thing has been done than the Russians feel the right thing has been done for their interests.

[Vladimir Kara-Murza]

I would say the first thing, the most obvious, is to shine the spotlight and say the truth. That always sounds banal, but it's really important. For instance, I remember on March 5 of this year—that's the day after Mr. Putin's “election victory”—there was a big rally on Moscow's Pushkinskaya Square, and we were all standing there. I remember seeing literally a sea of faces and flags of different movements, parties, left, right, doesn't matter—people just coming together once again to stand up for their dignity and to protest this election fraud that had just been accomplished. At that very time, as we were standing there, the U.S. State Department issued a congratulatory note, congratulating the Russian people, no less, for having held a presidential election. That's not what we were prepared to hear at that moment.

Obviously we all understand that there's such a thing as protocol, a need to cooperate, even with non-democratic countries. That's all clear, but congratulating a people after an election fraud has been done to them was taken at best as a mockery and at worst as an insult.

To always tell the truth is very important, and to call things for what they are. By shining a spotlight, I mean holding meetings such as the one you are holding today, these are very important and these are noticed. I promise you, these are noticed a great deal back in Moscow.

Secondly, I would say it's very fortunate that we have this oversight mechanism, which contains these provisions that human rights are global and they're matters of international concern. When Mr. Putin and Mr. Lavrov say, “Don't interfere in our internal affairs”, they're not telling the truth, and they know it, because issues of human rights are not considered internal affairs; these are matters of international concern. Things like election observation missions, which were, of course, a big deal a year ago, when there were many observers, both international and domestic, and the scale of the fraud, when about 13 million votes were stolen by Mr. Putin in favour of his party in the parliamentary election a year ago—that played a huge role in the protest movement and in the awakening of Russian civil society.

These kinds of oversight mechanisms, of election observations, of media systems.... You mentioned journalists; those are very important too.

Thirdly, of course, and actually the first priority, once again the subject of our meeting today, is the Magnitsky legislation against human rights abuses, a clear signal—and not just words, but action.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Mr. Jacob, you have the floor.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for coming to meet with us.

I have two questions for Mr. Kara-Murza.

The former owner of Yukos Oil, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who is also a political dissident, has been in prison in Russia for almost a decade, but he still seems to be able to make known his views on political and human rights issues in his country; he does so by giving interviews to the media, by publishing a book and by issuing public statements.

You have recently joined a think tank created by Mr. Khodorkovsky's son in the United States. So you are probably able to provide information on this specific case.

More specifically, to what extent is Mikhail Khodorkovsky able, from prison, to make public his concerns on political issues and on the protection of human rights in Russia? Is this ability to have access to the media unusual for a prisoner in Russia?