Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 50 of the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Before we begin, I would like to remind all members and other participants in the room of the following important preventative measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, we remind all in-person participants to keep their earpieces away from their microphones at all times.

As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced with a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please use only an approved black earpiece.

By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting.

When you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker for this purpose, which you will find on the table, as indicated. Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the risk of feedback from an earpiece in the room.

These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules for members and witnesses.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk of the subcommittee and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice of floor, English or French. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately.

I remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

In accordance with our routine motion concerning sound tests, I wish to inform the subcommittee that all witnesses have completed the required tests in advance of the meeting.

Before I start, I would like to bring to your attention that in our last study we agreed that we would do three studies—one on Georgia, one on Iran and one on Ethiopia. I would like to emphasize that, if the time allows us, we do a study on Sudan, because the situation there is going in a terribly bad direction.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the subcommittee on Tuesday, April 30, 2024, the subcommittee is beginning its study on Georgia's draft law on foreign agents.

I would like to welcome our witnesses.

From the Center for Development and Democracy, we have Ketevan Chachava, executive director, by video conference.

Ms. Chachava, welcome. You have up to five minutes for your opening remarks, after which we will proceed with a round of questions.

Ms. Chachava, the floor is yours.

[Ketevan Chachava, Executive Director, Center for Development and Democracy]

Thank you.

Honourable members of the House of Commons, I am deeply grateful for this opportunity to speak before you today. It is an honour, privilege and great responsibility.

My name is Ketevan Chachava. I am a civic and democracy activist from Georgia with 18 years of experience in the non-profit sector. I am the executive director and founder of the Tbilisi-based NGO, the Center for Development and Democracy, as well as a steering committee member of the World Movement for Democracy and a non-resident fellow of CEPA.

I stand before you as a proud Georgian citizen, committed to the democratic, Euro-Atlantic future of my country. I am a representative of tens of thousands of Georgians, from the young to the elderly, from the so-called silent generation to generation alpha, who have taken to the streets in peaceful protest for the past month.

I address you today with a deep concern regarding recent developments in Georgia, specifically the reintroduction of a Russian-style draft law on transparency of foreign influence, also referred to as the “foreign agents” law.

Our struggle is not about opposing a single piece of legislation. It's about defending the very fundamentals of our democracy: freedom, rule of law and our chosen path of Euro-Atlantic integration, which is protected by the Georgian constitution.

The stated objective of the proposed legislation is to ensure transparency concerning foreign influence and funding by implementing a specialized database. While transparency is universally valued, this legislation mandates that NGOs and independent media receiving over 20% of their funding from abroad must register as organizations carrying out the interests of a foreign power. Such categorization and the stigmatization of the organizations is one of the biggest issues that we all face. It diminishes the dignity and respect of not only the organizations but also the individuals associated with them.

This legislation mirrors oppressive measures seen in Russia, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan, where similar laws have silenced dissent, violated international human rights standards and led to closures or forced exile. Such laws serve only to weaken democracy, as evidenced by the V-Dem report.

Georgia, as an EU candidate and NATO aspirant country, finds itself at a crossroads where upholding democratic principles is crucial. Different opinion polls consistently indicate that 75% to 80% of Georgians support European and Euro-Atlantic integration. However, the proposed law contradicts these principles, posing a significant threat of silencing the vibrant civil society and free media. These pillars are vital and integral to our aspirations for EU and NATO membership.

The progression of events has been alarmingly fast. Announced only on April 3, the law has already passed with two hearings. The stakes could not be higher as we anticipate the final readings of this law by the end of June.

We continue to protest under the banner “Yes to Europe! No to Russian law!” Our peaceful demonstrations are met with disproportionate force and targeted violence against opposition leaders and civic activists, further worsening the crisis and existing polarization, which is becoming deeply alarming.

Therefore, I call on you to stand with us in this critical moment, on the right side of history. We seek your assistance against the attacks on civil society and media freedom, which are signs of democracy backsliding. Your reaffirmation of support for Georgia's Euro-Atlantic aspirations is crucial. Let us send a clear message to the members of the government and the Parliament of Georgia that attacks on civil society and media freedom are unacceptable and are damaging our democratic progress. This is not the path towards advancing closer to the Euro-Atlantic family, which Georgia is striving to join.

Thank you for your strong support of Georgia's NATO membership. Your dedication to human rights and democracy worldwide is deeply appreciated.

Thank you for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing your insights and addressing any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Madam Chachava. Well done. That was five minutes perfectly.

Now I would like to invite Madam Natasha Lindstaedt, professor in the department of government at the University of Essex, by video conference.

Welcome.

[Prof. Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex]

I want to thank the subcommittee and honourable members for inviting me to this session. My name is Natasha Lindstaedt. I'm a professor of government at the University of Essex, and I'm an expert on authoritarian regimes and autocratization.

For the last several years, I've been involved in a research project that included travelling to Georgia in September 2022 and interviewing two dozen interviewees, including academics, individuals who worked at NGOs, opposition politicians and journalists.

Foreign funding is the lifeline of NGOs in Georgia, and the new draft law that designates NGOs that receive more than 20% of their funding from abroad as operatives of foreign government would effectively undercut NGOs in Georgia. This attack on NGOs represents a clear assault on democracy, as NGOs give a voice to those who are unrepresented and powerless; they are vital to fostering civil society. NGOs also support political participation, the free flow of accurate information and media literacy.

Autocrats consider weakening NGOs a critical step to preventing threats to their power, and many autocratizing countries, including Hungary, Kyrgyzstan, Cambodia, Egypt, Ethiopia, China and Uganda, have possibly been inspired by Russia's very tough foreign agent laws.

Russia first started placing restrictions on NGOs in 2005 but implemented much more rigorous laws in 2012 following fraudulent elections that led to massive protests, and then again more stringent laws in 2014 and 2020. Under this expanded legislation, authorities in Russia have the power to label individuals, not just organizations, engaged in political activity as foreign agents. This leaves them very vulnerable to jail terms of up to five years should they fail to report their activities precisely in line with the law's requirements.

Though Georgia's law is not as stringent as the laws in Russia, this is the trajectory. These laws are incredibly arbitrary and, as mentioned, the goal is to make it near impossible for NGOs to operate, particularly those that are supporting democratic norms. By making the law arbitrary, it makes it difficult to determine what is permitted, forcing NGOs to err on the side of caution and focus solely on their own survival rather than any activities that are actually supportive of democracy.

According to some experts I interviewed in Georgia, Georgia is not democratic because it is more of a competitive authoritarian regime. The Georgian Dream party is not committed to democracy and is under considerable influence from Russia.

Opposition politicians, NGOs and academics claim that they were already being surveilled by the Georgian government, and this is inspired by the Soviet Russian-style tactic of kompromat, to find compromising information on them that would then be used against them.

Russia does not accept the boundaries of the post-Soviet world, and Georgians remain very concerned about facing another invasion, or that their de facto leader, Bidzina Ivanishvili, is either dependent on the Russians or has coinciding interests. Russia, through its vast propaganda machine, claims that the greatest existential threat facing countries in the post-Soviet sphere is western values embodied by, for example, non-traditional forms of marriage.

NGOs work to counter these disinformation campaigns. Closing civic spaces and infringing upon the work of NGOs is a global trend. It's a frightening one, and more and more people are facing serious restrictions.

Though authoritarian regimes often do not ban NGOs outright, they want to keep a close eye on them, and they mimic democracies in many different ways, one of which is to create these fake NGOs known as GONGOs, which are merely extensions of the state. Georgia has done this as well. The Georgian government has embarked on other tactics to weaken NGOs, whether they be engaging in personal attacks on people who work in NGOs, starting to show the salaries of people who work in the NGO sector, publicly shaming people who work in NGOs, claiming that protests are organized by NGOs to destabilize the country, claiming that people who work for NGOs don't care about democracy or the Georgian people, expelling people working in NGOs or supporting far-right groups that might directly attack NGOs.

The spate of attacks on NGOs is a critical tool used by authoritarian regimes to expand their power, and though these laws are passed in defence of sovereignty, they represent a clear break from democracy. As Russian influence continues to grow in the region and around the world, these types of copycat laws are more likely to become the norm.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Professor Lindstaedt.

We will now proceed to questions.

Mr. Majumdar, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Merci beaucoup.

Madam Chachava, thank you very much for your commentary. What do you believe the implications will be for your current status and registration?

[Ketevan Chachava]

Basically, as I mentioned, the law itself is brought in the name of transparency. If transparency were the true idea of the law, there are all the different options available with existing legislation—with minor changes to ensure extra transparency—with grants, for example.

Unfortunately, this legislation is bringing the stigma that will basically make sure that no NGO in this country will register under the name that is being imposed on us, which is “an organization carrying out the interest of a foreign power”. We do not represent a foreign power.

If this legislation is passed, potentially by the end of June, there are 60 days before it goes into force. That means that we all have to register ourselves. The Ministry of Justice has the power to register everybody who received grants in 2023 that were more than 20% of their income, which would mean that being in this registry literally brings a stigma. It makes it almost impossible for people to work under this name because, again, going back to the history of Georgia, “foreign agents” is not really a term that anybody as a civic activist, for example, would ever agree upon.

Logistically or officially, there is no official interference with registration until the first month that we are not registered, which would potentially be in September, just one month before the elections in Georgia. That would mean a $25,000 lari fine, which is around, I want to say, $12,000 Canadian dollars.

For every month after that, it's a $20,000 lari addition, which would mean that we will not be able to function if we do not register. If we are not ready to take the stigma, it will mean that basically there will be no NGOs left in this country and no free media, which is getting support from our western partners, including the U.S., Canada, the EU and so on.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chachava.

May I ask a follow-up question? I understand that there's been a delegation going through Washington from Georgian Dream, claiming that this legislation is designed to stave off extremist and Russian interference. In your opinion, what is the true intent of the law?

[Ketevan Chachava]

As I have mentioned, if transparency was the main idea, as Georgian Dream has tried to say.... Nobody in this sector is actually against transparency. We are already very transparent. Every NGO, on its official website.... We publish every grant we receive from our western partners.

To be honest, if there is any fraud, money or potential questions, this is not really the area that needs to be investigated. There is really none.

Unfortunately, what we can already see, from past years.... Since last March, when this law was first introduced, there has been a huge protest, and Georgian Dream has withdrawn its support for this law. Since then, a very intensive, anti-western, anti-NGO propaganda, disinformation and misinformation campaign has been carried out.

Even today, to be honest, there's already a huge danger. For example, today, my colleague was beaten in the streets, along with media representatives.

There's already quite high tension and polarization. They're saying the NGOs are agents and the NGOs are here to—I don't know—destabilize and have a colourful revolution. They're saying everybody who has studied abroad is a potential agent.

All this ongoing disinformation and misinformation is already harming the sector so much that we can see what the potential threat is here.

As I have mentioned, bringing this Russian-style law.... This is not an EU, western-style, transparent approach law. This law has a number of issues in it, including, one, fining, destabilizing and literally closing down the NGOs and media organizations, as well as potentially sending us into exile.

As we have seen with similar legislation in Russia, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan, this is not a positive potential development.

If the true side of this is a backsliding of democracy, it's going to be a true slide. The true outcome of this legislation will be silencing the independent voices that are so vital in democratic societies. That's how the very vibrant and strong civil society of Georgia, which we have been so proud of, might just disappear.

This is actually quite a dangerous zone that Georgian Dream is entering.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

I have time for one final question, for Professor Lindstaedt.

How can the Georgian government refer to this law as European when all allies have condemned it as being completely incompatible with European values?

[Prof. Natasha Lindstaedt]

I think that's just something that regimes.... In particular, regimes that are autocratizing try to spin things in different ways. They spin it as being European or about their sovereignty to mask the real reason behind this law.

I think it has already been mentioned that this is to deal with any kind of potential threat to the ruling party, because NGOs, to an autocratizing country, are that one big threat. They're vibrant, particularly in a country like Georgia. They are supportive of democracy—they're vital to supporting democracy—and they threaten the incumbent Georgian Dream party and the government there.

They'll try to spin it in a different way, and that's something, as I mentioned, that many autocratizing countries do. They say something, but they're really doing something else. We've seen this type of spin being used in Hungary as well, to justify these types of infringements on NGOs, but it's really a pretext to prevent any threats to their power.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Ms. Lindstaedt, and thank you, Mr. Majumdar.

Now I give the floor to Madam Vandenbeld for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ketevan Chachava.

I just want to start by saying I think all of us have admiration and support, and we stand in solidarity with you and all those like you. I've seen the images of the thousands of Georgians in the street, fighting for your freedom and your democracy, for freedom of the press and for civil society.

I'm very glad that one of the things you said is that this isn't about one individual law; this is about making sure there is going to be space for democracy, civil society and media freedom in Georgia.

This is my first question for you. Can you tell us, first of all, the impact this will have, widely, on Georgian civil society and on Georgian independent media?

Could you also update us a bit about what is happening in the streets right now?

Thank you.

[Ketevan Chachava]

We truly feel and appreciate the solidarity and support. Once again, thank you so much for having us today and discussing these very stressful developments in Georgia and Canada. Thank you for all the support we have seen for the past decade, since the independence of our country.

The impact of this law on civil society is going to be crucial. There are over 30,000 registered NGOs in this country in various fields of work, from watchdog organizations working on election observations and on raising voter awareness to those fighting for human rights and for women's rights. There are a number of cases that Georgian NGOs have won in different international courts, defending the citizens of this country.

Additionally, there are a lot of regional organizations or different types of organizations that will be under this law literally closing down, for example, those who work on the smaller scale on their local issues addressing and fighting for children's rights, animals' rights, providing free food or providing services for people with disabilities or IDPs. The numbers are limitless, because this law does not have any distinction, or there's no difference based on the field of work. Sometimes there is a mix-up of this law with the potential work of lobbyists.

Again, if there is a misunderstanding, there is a law in Georgia about lobbying. If there is a need for additional clarification, that could be addressed. Once again, this law has nothing to do with transparency. This law directly attacks and abolishes civil society, basically. It destroys civil society. Once again, there's no way that an NGO in this country will register. We would be given the name “foreign agent” when we are not and have never been foreign agents. Additionally, with all the fines that are going to come every month, you can imagine that there's literally no chance of NGOs dealing with such high financial fees.

Concerning the updates on the protests, it's now 1 a.m. in Georgia, but there are already people and young people outside in the streets. Since the reintroduction of this law from April 3, street protests have not stopped. There have been thousands and even over 100,000 citizens in the streets protesting this law. The most important aspect, I think, in this protest is that it's a very clear message: no to Russian law, yes to Europe.

Our European and Euro-Atlantic integration is a main priority for Georgians. It's a main priority for our country's future. That has also been strengthened by our constitution. Therefore, yes, that has been a lot of motivation. It has given me a lot of inspiration to see a younger generation, even my children, who are 12, 13 or 14 years old, out in the streets protesting and defending their rights and their future.

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

Thank you so much for explaining all that to us.

To the young people who are in the streets—I hope that some of them are watching—know that we Canadians are standing with them and supporting them in their bravery and their courage in fighting for democracy and for their rights.

I would like to, if I have time, ask a quick question of Professor Lindstaedt.

Professor, you said that the trajectory of this law is going toward the kinds of things that are done in Russia. I note that the protesters are referring to this as the “Russian law”. I know that often authoritarian regimes will use the language of democracy and will mimic and try to draw parallels where there are none in order to try to justify repressive laws and the undermining of democracy.

Could you talk a little about how that is done and how it's being played out in Georgia?

[Prof. Natasha Lindstaedt]

Do you mean how authoritarian regimes mimic democracy in general?

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

No, I mean how they use the language of democracy to cloak the fact that what they're doing is very undemocratic.

[Prof. Natasha Lindstaedt]

That actually touches upon the last question a bit. It's a very good question.

In addition to mimicking democracy, like the institutions, they like to use the language of democracy. In some cases, these laws have been copied by the Russian law almost verbatim, word for word. It's not clear if Russia is directing countries to do this word for word, or if they're inspired by or there is just some collaboration or coinciding interest, but we see that Russia is playing a huge role here, particularly in the countries in the post-Soviet sphere.

On using the language of democracy, why do they do this? We speculate on whether or not they're trying to showcase some kind of legitimacy to their own public and to convince them that they're living in a democratic society. To use this specific language of democracy is just a very common tool used by autocratizing countries.

We've found from surveys in authoritarian regimes, in countries that are authoritarian, that the people living in them sometimes are led to believe that they do live in a democracy and that the elections are relatively free and fair. That just shows how strong some of these propaganda campaigns have been.

In the Georgian case, it is a much more difficult case for those leading the regime, the Georgian Dream party, to convince the public that what they're doing is for democratic reasons. I think a lot of the Georgian public is well aware of what's happening, and they can't have the wool pulled over their eyes, but they use this type of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Can you wrap it up, please? We are out of time.

[Prof. Natasha Lindstaedt]

Yes.

The use of this type of lingo is often something that they do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank our witnesses for being with us today to take part in this extremely important study. Our hearts go out to you. I want you to know that most of the members of Parliament on this committee are banned from travelling to Russia. There may already be something that unites us.

We've already talked a lot of talk about Russia since the beginning of this meeting. Ms. Lindstaedt, for the committee's information, can you demonstrate what the links are between the Russian government and the leadership in Georgia, please?

[Prof. Natasha Lindstaedt]

It's not exactly clear what the links are. I can base it only on what the people I interviewed said: that they're not entirely clear whether the de facto leader, Ivanishvili, has coinciding interests with Russia, as I mentioned, or is being controlled by Russia, and that's something that different people have speculated on—to what extent?

In many ways, Russia does not see the countries in the post-Soviet sphere as independent. It doesn't respect their sovereignty. There is an aggressive propaganda campaign—obviously in countries like Ukraine, but also in countries such as Georgia—to try to polarize, to try to provide this idea that western values are trying to infiltrate traditional values and also that western forces are destabilizing Georgia. Russian influence and propaganda, which we sometimes refer to as “sharp power”, because it's sort of perforating and undermining regimes, is extensive, to the degree that I can go into more detail if needed.

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

Thank you.

That brings me to my second question, which will be for Ms. Chachava.

Some experts believe that an attempt is currently being made to distract the public from this bill and to further divide the opposition by putting LGBTQ+ issues on the political agenda, such as the same-sex marriage legislation, which, depending on the party in power, would protect family values and children.

I think this is pure propaganda to achieve certain ends, but do you have any information for us on the subject?

[Ketevan Chachava]

As I've mentioned, disinformation, misinformation and anti-western propaganda have all come together, especially for the past month but basically since last year's protests. You are correct when you mention the LGBTQI draft law, which is a draft constitutional change. At the same time that Georgia reintroduced the agents law, they have also been having meetings in the region and having these discussions with the wider public.

Honestly, there is less than six months left before our upcoming parliamentary elections, which will be extremely important, being the first fully proportional elections. As you might be aware, this could mean that for the first time Georgia will have a multi-party democracy in place. Therefore, this whole spring has been occupied by discussions of western agents; attacking NGOs; potential threats from the west, including the LGBTQI community; and the rights of women. Those are also coming up in discussions.

As you might be aware, also in the fast track, Parliament has made a change by abolishing gender quotas for the upcoming parliamentary elections, basically with three-day discussions, and getting those gender quotas took a number of years of advocacy and fighting for. All of this legislation that has been ongoing at the same time—while there is the protest, while there is the large discussion about basically abolishing freedom of speech and freedom of assembly—of course is a warning and is a very depressing development.

As was mentioned, seeing the number of people protesting and coming out, being very loud about the importance of our constitution and defending our constitution.... It is very democratic. We believe the legislation that we've mentioned is anti-constitutional. Even if these laws are adopted, for sure we will continue to fight in the constitutional courts. Then we will continue to Strasbourg and so on. Of course we will not get tired of fighting for these rights and fighting for Georgia's European and Euro-Atlantic future.